Рональд Эрнест «Рон» Пол (Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul, 20 августа 1935) — американский политик. Член палаты представителей. Участник «Движения чаепития». Участвовал в президентских выборах в 1988 году в качестве кандидата от Либертарианской партии. Перед выборами 2008 года до 12 июня являлся претендентом на выдвижение в кандидаты на пост президента США от Республиканской партии. 13 мая 2011 года официально объявил, что он будет бороться за выдвижение в кандидаты от Республиканской партии США на выборах Президента США в 2012 году. Однако, кандидатом от Республиканской партии тогда стал Митт Ромни. Подробнее
Despite recently being demonetized by YouTube, possibly for his anti-establishment views and slamming President Trump’s decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul is back with a video addressing the widening left-right political divide in the US – and the role that the “immoral use” of government force has played in fomenting the US’s present political crisis. Claiming that the US is "witnessing a battle between authoritarian groups in America", the prominent libertarian and former politician says that the "Alt-Right" and Cultural Marxists are fighting to control a government that is bankrupt, doesn't follow the Constitution, and controls a foreign empire that is running on fumes. Ron Paul describes our dilemma. “Most Americans agree the violent confrontation between the alt-right and the cultural Marxist is serious, dangerous and getting worse. Understanding economics, cultural differences and the acceptance of authoritarianism is required to find the answer to the crisis. Rejecting a society based on personal liberty led to the conflict we are now witnessing: replacing authoritarianism with volunteerism must be our goal. The immoral use of government force caused this crisis and expanding it will only increase the hatred between the two sides. Though there are leaders on both sides promoting violence, large numbers are attracted to the raging culture war for emotional reasons in response to the lies and the incitement by those whose ulterior motive is seeking power, wealth and promoting a dangerous new world order.” The biggest problem that Paul sees is that neither the left or the right have made liberty – both economic and political – a priority. In fact, just the opposite is happening. Both the left and the right are moving in a more authoritarian direction. Meanwhile, the left’s penchant for labeling all of their ideological opponents as Nazis and racists is helping to sow chaos and division, Paul says. “One side has been labeled the alt-right, the other cultural Marxism. The right would like to reduce the debate to the differences between Communism and a populist government that emphasizes caring for Americans over foreigners. The Left would have us believe it's merely a conflict with supporters of racism and injustice and cultural Marxism. Neither side speaks of Liberty. The alt-right is made up of conservatives, populists, and pro white enthusiasts, but all are labeled Nazis and fascists by the left.” “Some are just fed up with the false charges and the penalties toward whites by leftist racists and the extremism of political correctness. The vicious labeling of all those who are frustrated and who join with those who are angry as Nazis and racist is only for the purpose of creating chaos. The left demands that all Trump supporters fit into this category. This is the strategy for fomenting race riots and civil war. No doubt Trump makes himself vulnerable to these inaccurate and wild charges by his enemies. The left promotes cultural Marxism and class warfare yet there are fellow travelers who represent typical liberal activists progressives and white haters. Many on the Left generally despise any minority who chooses to be a conservative or libertarian.” Leftists, Paul says, are far more cynical than their idealistic proclamations would suggest. White leftists only see minorities as important within the context of their votes, and are quick to treat minorities who identify as conservative or libertarian as traitors to the cause. Meanwhile, neither side understands how liberty leads to economic prosperity for the largest number of citizens. “Too many on the left see minorities as only important when their votes can be corralled. From their viewpoint as minorities, well-being success must come only from benefiting from doctrines promoted by forced wealth redistribution by the liberal left it's all about control it's cynical racism.” “The philosophic issues that divide us are what matters. Both sides accept the principle of government aggression as a proper tool of government. Neither side understands how true freedom leads to the prosperity that both sides pay lip service to. Neither side understands the shortcomings of deceptive, short-lived prosperity that comes with government deficits and monetary inflation which always ends badly, especially for the people who are supposed to be benefiting by government welfare spending. The ending of such a period of artificial wealth is now apparent and since it's not understood by either side of the current raging conflict, both are proposing different government solutions with sharp disagreements in the blame game.” Both the left and the right claim to be the torchbearers of the American experiment. But neither side cares about what the Constitution says, Paul said. Furthermore, both sides banded together to support the Bush doctrine, a willingness to countenance foreign interventionism that persists across the modern political spectrum. Leftists and conservatives take advantage of superficial differences to divide people – the left via identity politics and the right via their racist views. “Both sides claim patriotic loyalty and ownership of the American tradition. Neither group cares about what the Constitution says both sides support America's world Empire its militarism the military industrial complex and horribly dangerous Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. Neither side condemns our aggression or foreign interventionism. There is extensive support by both for economic planning by government though in different degrees and for different purposes.” “This means no complaints about protectionism, Federal Reserve power or subsidies to the special interest groups. For our bipartisan leaders, it is only who gets to distribute the loot that matters. Identity politics has taken over in forming alliances. This encourages lying, race preferences demagoguery and inciting hatred since the concept of Liberty is something that applies to individuals rather than special interest groups it is therefore rejected.” “Liberty is not something that can be distributed according to the various groups that claim victimization and a right to other people's earnings. The tool used especially by the far left is extreme political correctness that regulates speech by claiming hateful motivation by anyone with whom they disagree. These charges are inevitably spread with a broad brush by a complicit media advocating both types of authoritarianism. Left and right purposely divide people by natural and acceptable differences. Pursuing the cause of Liberty unites all those who honestly seek peace and prosperity in distinction from those who resort to authoritarianism. Divisiveness will cause both sides to fail with their half-hearted efforts to force an escalation of violence and the destruction of the middle class.” Unfortunately, neither the left or the right has expressed concern with the “deeply flawed” US monetary system, Paul said. The Federal Reserve has been allowed to debase the US dollar through the complicity of both left- and right-leaning politicians. And now, as Paul notes, the bills are all coming due. “Neither side will face up to the economic reality of a deeply flawed economic system and the pending collapse of the American Empire. Sadly neither side complains about the danger of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strikes and decisions being made to go to war without congressional approval, the dependency on deficit spending, and the monetary mischief of the Fed. The bills are now coming due and the political chatter associated with the current social strife serves to distract from the philosophical impurities from which we have been infected for many decades. The number of enemies that we have generated by our foreign policy is ignored and the problem made worse by our economic and military meddling around the world our inability to pay our bills and meet our unfunded liabilities will be the limiting factor.” In short, the US’s economic and military meddling around the world have led to a reliance on unsustainable deficit spending. This, Paul contends, is the greatest threat facing American society - and neither side is talking about a solution. His full video is below.
Authored by Michael Rozeff via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity, Eleven years ago, this essay argued against hate-crime laws. One argument read “People can eventually be accused of hate crimes when they use hateful speech. Hate crimes laws are a seed that can sprout in new directions.” This has now come to pass, I am sorry to say. This week, the Congress passed S. J. Res. 49, and President Trump signed it, making it part of the U.S. legal code. The law rejects “White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups…” But why? Because of their ideas? Because of their expression of these ideas? No government that stands for freedom and free speech, whose charge is to protect rights, should be singling out specific groups by name and by law declaring them as outlaws or threats because of their philosophies. If they have committed a crime, such as defamation of character or incitement to riot or riot itself, then charge them and try them. But American government has no legitimate authority to single out some of its citizens in this way. This, furthermore, is an exceedingly bad precedent. Who’s next? The resolution is too specific, but it’s also dangerously vague. The term “other hate groups” has no known definition. Suppose that this term is defined by a group like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC currently names 917 groups as hate groups (see here for a list). Their criteria are not restricted to violent actions. They comprise SPEECH. They say “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” They are very clear about this: “Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.” This Congressional resolution is a declaration that certain kinds of groups, some named but many, many others open to inclusion, are to be attacked by the U.S. government. The law urges “the President and the President’s Cabinet to use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups.” The term “threats” in the first paragraph is vague, dangerously vague. However, the very next paragraph singles outfree speech actions when “hundreds of torch-bearing White nationalists, White supremacists, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis chanted racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant slogans…” The same sentence joins this with violent actions “…and violently engaged with counter-demonstrators on and around the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville…” This law regards free speech as a threat, linking it to violence, painting them with one brush. There can be no justice that can stem from such a completely sloppy and inexcusably amateurish legal treatment. This linkage is made clear in paragraph seven with this language: “…communities everywhere are concerned about the growing and open display of hate and violence being perpetrated by those groups…” There is no distinction made here between the “open display of hate” and “violence being perpetrated”. As I predicted 11 years ago in arguing against hate crime laws, hate speech is being identified with hate crime. I am just as uncomfortable with the notion of defining and singling out “hate speech” as some sort of new danger or threat or harmful activity or crime, to be dealt with by government or courts of law as I was 11 years ago with the idea of “hate crime”. The standard categories of crime are quite enough without adding to them a government laundry list of prejudices and aversions that everyone is not supposed to express or feel, under penalty of government law.
Бывший член палаты представителей, участник праймериз президентских выборов 2008 и 2012 годов Рон Пол прокомментировал отказ сената США отозвать разрешения на ведение боевых действий в Ираке и Афганистане, которые вступили в силу с 2001 и 2002 годов соответственно. Читать далее
Сенат США отказался отзывать разрешения на ведение боевых действий в Ираке и Афганистане, которые действуют с 2001 и 2002 годов соответственно. Предложение о прекращении операций было внесено сенатором-республиканцем от штата Кентукки Рэндом Полом, его идею поддержала лишь треть из ста сенаторов. RT пообщался с отцом Рэнда, бывшим членом палаты представителей конгресса США Роном Полом. По его мнению, определённым кругам в Вашингтоне очень выгодно вести заокеанские войны. Подписывайтесь на RT Russian - http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=rtrussian RT на русском — http://russian.rt.com/ Vkontakte — http://vk.com/rt_russian Facebook — http://www.facebook.com/RTRussian Twitter — http://twitter.com/RT_russian Periscope — http://www.periscope.tv/RT_russian/ Livejournal — http://rt-russian.livejournal.com/ Odnoklassniki — http://ok.ru/rtrussian Telegram — https://telegram.me/rt_russian Viber — https://chats.viber.com/rtrussian
The US Senate has voted 61-36 to kill the amendment, proposed by Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) which would repeal the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Afghanistan and Iraq. RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RussiaToday Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT Listen to us on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/rttv RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.
Suggestions?... :-) **Should-Read: Nancy MacLean**: DEMOCRACY IN CHAINS: THE DEEP HISTORY OF THE RADICAL RIGHT'S STEALTH PLAN FOR AMERICA : "As 1956 drew to a close, Colgate Whitehead Darden Jr., the president of the University of Virginia, feared... >...second Brown v. Board of Education ruling, calling for the dismantling of segregation in public schools with “all deliberate speed.” In Virginia, outraged state officials responded with legislation to force the closure of any school that planned to comply.... Darden... could barely stand to contemplate the damage.... Even the name of this plan, “massive resistance,” made his gentlemanly Virginia sound like Mississippi. On his desk was a proposal, written by the... chair of the economics department... James McGill Buchanan [who] liked to call himself a Tennessee country boy. But Darden knew better.... >Without mentioning the crisis at hand, Buchanan’s proposal put in writing what Darden was thinking: Virginia needed to find a better way to deal with the incursion on states’ rights represented by Brown. To most Americans living in the North, Brown was a ruling to end segregated schools—nothing more, nothing less. And Virginia’s response was about race. But to men like Darden and Buchanan, two well-educated sons of the South...
Authored by Robert Bridge via RT.com, Google has taken the unprecedented step of burying material, mostly from websites on the political right, that it has deemed to be inappropriate. The problem, however, is that the world's largest search engine is a left-leaning company with an ax to grind. Let's face it, deep down in our heart of hearts we knew the honeymoon wouldn't last forever. Our willingness to place eternal faith in an earth-straddling company that oversees the largest collection of information ever assembled was doomed to end in a bitter divorce from the start. After all, each corporation, just like humans, has their own political proclivities, and Google is certainly no exception. But we aren't talking about your average car company here. The first sign Google would eventually become more of a political liability than a public utility was revealed in 2005 when CEO Eric Schmidt (who is now executive chairman of Alphabet, Inc, Google's parent company) sat down with interviewer Charlie Rose, who asked Schmidt to explain "where the future of search is going." Schmidt's response should have triggered alarm bells across the free world. "Well, when you use Google, do you get more than one answer," Schmidt asked rhetorically, before answering deceptively. "Of course you do. Well, that's a bug. We have more bugs per second in the world. We should be able to give you the right answer just once... and we should never be wrong." Really? Think about that for a moment. Schmidt believes, counter-intuitively, that getting multiple possible choices for any one Google query is not the desirable prospect it should be (aren't consumers always in search of more variety?), but rather a "bug" that should be duly squashed underfoot. Silly mortal, you should not expect more than one answer for every question because the almighty Google, our modern-day Oz, "should never be wrong!" This is the epitome of corporate hubris. And it doesn't require much imagination to see that such a master plan will only lead to a colossal whitewashing of the historic record. For example, if a Google user performs a search request for - oh, I don't know - 'what caused the Iraq War 2003,' he or she would be given, according to Schmidt's algorithmic wet dream, exactly one canned answer. Any guesses on what that answer would be? I think it's safe to say the only acceptable answer would be the state-sanctioned conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction, an oft-repeated claim we now know to be patently false. The list of other such complicated events that also demand more than one answer - from the Kennedy assassination to the Gulf of Tonkin incident - could be continued for many pages. Schmidt's grandiose vision, where there is just "one answer to every question," sounds like a chapter borrowed from Orwell's dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where omnipresent Big Brother had an ironclad grip on history, news, information, everything. In such a intensely controlled, nightmarish world, individuals - as well as entire historical events - can be 'disappeared' down the memory hole without a trace. Though we've not quite reached that bad land yet, we're plodding along in that direction. That much became disturbingly clear ever since Donald Trump routed Hillary Clinton for the presidency. This surprise event became the bugle call for Google to wage war on 'fake news' outlets, predominantly on the political right. 'Like being gay in the 1950s' Just before Americans headed to the polls in last year's presidential election, WikiLeaks delivered a well-timed steaming dump, revealing that Eric Schmidt had been working with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as early as April 2014. This news came courtesy of a leaked email from John Podesta, former chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, who wrote: "I met with Eric Schmidt tonight. As David reported, he's ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc. He was more deferential on structure than I expected. Wasn't pushing to run through one of his existing firms. Clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn't seem like he wanted to push others out. Clearly wants to get going..." via GIPHY The implications of the CEO of the world's most powerful company playing favorites in a presidential race are obvious, and make the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s resemble a rigged game of bingo at the local senior citizens center by comparison. Yet the dumbed-down world of American politics, which only seems to get excited when Republicans goof up, continued to turn on its wobbly axis as if nothing untold had occurred. Before continuing our trip down memory lane, let's fast forward a moment for a reality check. Google's romance with the US political left is not a matter of conjecture. In fact, it has just become the subject of a released internal memo penned by one James Damore, a former Google engineer. In the 10-point memo, Damore discussed at length the extreme liberal atmosphere that pervades Google, saying that being a conservative in the Silicon Valley sweat shop was like "being gay in the 1950s." "We have... this monolithic culture where anyone with a dissenting view can’t even express themselves. Really, it’s like being gay in the 1950s. These conservatives have to stay in the closet and have to mask who they really are. And that’s a huge problem because there’s open discrimination against anyone who comes out of the closet as a conservative." Beyond the quirky, laid back image of a Google campus, where 'Googlers' enjoy free food and foot massages, lies a "monolithic culture where anyone with a dissenting view can’t even express themselves," says Damore, who was very cynically fired from Google for daring to express a personal opinion. That is strange. Although Google loudly trumpets its multicultural diversity in terms of its hiring policy, it clearly has a problem dealing with a diversity of opinion. That attitude does not seem to bode well for a search engine company that must remain impartial on all matters - political or otherwise. Back to the 2016 campaign. Even CNN at the time was admitting that Google was Donald Trump's "biggest enemy." Indeed, not only was Schmidt apparently moonlighting for the DNC, his leftist company was actively shutting down information on the Republican front runner. At one point when Google users typed in a query for 'presidential candidates,' they got thousands of results for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Missing in action from the search results, however, was, yes, Donald Trump. When NBC4 reached out to Google about the issue, a spokesperson said a "technical bug" was what caused Trump to disappear into the internet ether. Now, where have we heard the word "bug" before? It is worth wondering if this is what Eric Schmidt had in mind when he expressed his vision of a "one answer" Google search future? In any case, this brings to the surface another disturbing question that is directly linked to the 'fake news' accusations, which in turn is fueling Google's crackdown on the free flow of news from the political right today. In the run up to the 2016 presidential election, poll after poll predicted a Clinton landslide victory. Of course, nothing of the sort materialized, as even traditional Democratic strongholds, like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan pulled the lever for Trump. As the Economist reported: "On the eve of America’s presidential election, national surveys gave Hillary Clinton a lead of around four percentage points, which betting markets and statistical models translated into a probability of victory ranging from 70 percent to 99 percent." The fact that Trump - in direct contradiction to what the polls had been long predicting - ended up winning by such a huge margin, there is a temptation to say the polls themselves were 'fake news,' designed to convince the US voter that a Clinton landslide victory was forthcoming. This could have been a ploy by the pollsters, many of whom are affiliated with left-leaning news corporations, by the way, for keeping opposition voters at home in the belief their vote wouldn't matter. In fact, statisticians were warning of a "systemic mainstream misinformation" in poll data favoring Clinton in the days and weeks before Election day. Yet the Leftist brigade, in cahoots with the Googlers, were busy nurturing their own fervent conspiracy theory that 'fake news' - with some help from the Russians, of course - was the reason for Hillary Clinton's devastating defeat. Who will guard us against the Google guardians? Just one month after Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States, purportedly on the back of 'fake news,' Google quietly launched Project Owl, the goal of which was to devise a method to "demote misleading, false and offensive articles online," according to a Bloomberg report. The majority of the crackdown will be carried out by machines. Now here is where we enter the rat's nest. After all, what one news organization, or alternative news site, might consider legitimate news and information, another news group, possibly from the mainstream media, would dismiss as a conspiracy theory. And vice versa. In other words, what we have here is a battle for the misty mountain top of information, and Google appears to be paving the way for its preferred candidate, which is naturally the mainstream media. In other words, Google has a dog in this fight, but it shouldn't. Here is how they have succeeded in pushing for their crackdown on news and information. It's sad to see language like this from Hillary @Recode "I take responsibility for every decision I made but that's not why we lost." — Julian Assange ???? (@JulianAssange) May 31, 2017 The mainstream media almost immediately began peddling the fake news story as to why Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. In fact, it even started before Clinton lost the election after Trump jokingly told a rally: “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing... I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” The Democrats, of course, found no humor in the remark. Indeed, they began pushing the fake news story, with help from the likes of Amazon-owned Washington Post, that it was Russians who hacked the DNC email system and passed along the information to WikiLeaks, who then dumped it at the most inopportune time for the Democrats. With this masterly sleight of hand, did you notice what happened? We are no longer talking about the whereabouts of Clinton's estimated 33,000 deleted emails, nor are we discussing how the DNC worked behind the scenes to derail Bernie Sanders' chances at being a presidential candidate. Far worse, we are not considering the tragic fate of a young man named Seth Rich, the now-deceased DNC staffer who was gunned down in Washington, DC on July 10, 2016. Some news sites say Rich was preparing to testify against the DNC for "voter fraud," while others say that was contrived nonsense. According to the mainstream media, in this case, Newsweek, only batshit crazy far-right conspiracy sites could ever believe Seth Rich leaked the Clinton emails. "In the months since his murder, Rich has become an obsession of the far right, an unwilling martyr to a discredited cause," Newsweek commented. "On social media sites like Reddit and news outlets like World Net Daily, it is all but an article of faith that Rich, who worked for the Democratic National Committee, was the source who gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks, for which he was slain, presumably, by Clinton operatives. If that were to be true—and it very clearly isn’t—the faithful believe it would invalidate any accusations that Donald J. Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia in tilting the election toward him." Blame Russia The reality is, we'll probably never know what happened to Mr. Rich, but what we do know is that Russia has become the convenient fall guy for Clinton's emails getting hacked and dumped in the public arena. We also know Google is taking advantage of this conspiracy theory (to this day not a thread of proof has been offered to prove Russia had anything to do with the release of the emails) to severely hinder the work of news sites - most of which sit on the right of the political spectrum. Last November, just two weeks after Trump's victory, Sundar Pichai, the chief executive of Google, addressed the question of 'fake news' in a BBC interview, and whether it could have swayed the vote in Trump's favor. "You know, I think fake news as a whole could be an issue [in elections]. From our perspective, there should just be no situation where fake news gets distributed, so we are all for doing better here. So, I don't think we should debate it as much as work hard to make sure we drive news to its more trusted sources, have more fact checking and make our algorithms work better, absolutely," he said. Did you catch that? Following the tiresome rigmarole, the Google CEO said he doesn't think "we should debate it as much as we work hard to make sure we drive news to its more trusted sources..." That is a truly incredible comment, buried at the sea floor of the BBC article. How can the head of the largest search engine believe a democracy needn't debate how Google determines what information, and by whom, is allowed into the public realm, thus literally shaping our entire worldview? To ask the question is to answer it... "Just in the last two days we announced we will remove advertising from anything we identify as fake news," Pichai said. And how will Google decide who the Internet baddies are? It will rely on "more than 15 additional expert NGOs and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue," to determine what should be flagged and what should not. Feeling better yet? This brings to mind the quaint Latin phrase, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves? especially since these groups also have their own heavy political axes to grind. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Pichai and his increasingly Orwellian company already stand accused of censorship, following the outrageous decision to bar former Congressman Ron Paul and his online news program, Liberty Report, from receiving advertising revenue for a number of videos which Paul recently posted. Dr. Ron Paul would never be confused as a dangerous, far-right loony. Paul is a 12-term ex-congressman and three-time presidential candidate. However, he is popular among his supporters for views that often contradict those of Washington’s political establishment, especially on issues of war and peace. Now if squeaky clean Ron Paul can't get a fair hearing before the Google/YouTube tribunal, what are chances for average commentators? “We have no violence, no foul language, no political extremism, no hate or intolerance,” Daniel McAdams, co-producer of the Ron Paul Liberty Report, told RT America. “Our program is simply a news analysis discussion from a libertarian and antiwar perspective.” McAdams added that the YouTube demonetization “creates enormous financial burdens for the program.” Many other commentators have also been affected by the advert ban, including left-wing online blogger Tim Black and right-wing commentator Paul Joseph Watson. Their videos have registered millions of views. “Demonetization is a deliberate effort to stamp out independent political commentary – from the left or the right,” Black told the Boston Globe’s Hiawatha Bray. “It’s not about specific videos... It’s about pushing out the diversity of thought and uplifting major news networks such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC.” In light of this inquisition against free speech and free thought, it is no surprise that more voices are calling for Google, and other massive online media, like Facebook and Amazon, to become nationalized for the public good. "If we don’t take over today’s platform monopolies, we risk letting them own and control the basic infrastructure of 21st-century society," wrote Nick Srnicek, a lecturer in the digital economy at King’s College London. It's time for Google to take a stroll beyond its isolated Silicon Valley campus and realize there is a whole world of varying political opinion out there that demands a voice. Otherwise, it may find itself on the wrong side of history and time, a notoriously uninviting place known as 1984.
Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity, Texans affected by Hurricane Harvey, including my family and me, appreciate the outpouring of support from across the country. President Donald Trump has even pledged to donate one million dollars to relief efforts. These private donations will be much more valuable than the as much as 100 billion dollars the federal government is expected to spend on relief and recovery. Federal disaster assistance hinders effective recovery efforts, while federal insurance subsidies increase the damage caused by natural disasters. Federal disaster aid has existed since the early years of the republic. In fact, it was a payment to disaster victims that inspired Davy Crockett’s “Not Yours to Give” speech. However, the early federal role was largely limited to sending checks. The federal government did not become involved in managing disaster relief and recovery until the 20th century. America did not even have a federal agency dedicated solely to disaster relief until 1979, when President Jimmy Carter created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by executive order. Yet, Americans somehow managed to rebuild after natural disasters before 1979. For example, the people of Galveston, Texas successfully rebuilt the city following a major hurricane that destroyed the city in 1900. FEMA’s well-documented inefficiencies are the inevitable result of centralizing control over something as complex as disaster recovery in a federal bureaucracy. When I served in Congress, I regularly voted against federal disaster aid for my district. After the votes, I would hear from angry constituents, many of whom would later tell me that after dealing with FEMA they agreed that Texas would be better off without federal “help.” Following natural disasters, individuals who attempt to return to their own property - much less try to repair the damage - without government permission can be arrested and thrown in jail. Federal, state, and local officials often hinder or even stop voluntary rescue and relief efforts. FEMA is not the only counterproductive disaster assistance program. The National Flood Insurance Program was created to provide government-backed insurance for properties that could not obtain private insurance on their own. By overruling the market’s verdict that these properties should not be insured, federal flood insurance encourages construction in flood-prone areas, thus increasing the damage caused by flooding. Just as payroll taxes are unable to fully fund Social Security and Medicare, flood insurance premiums are unable to fund the costs of flood insurance. Federal flood insurance was almost $25 billion in the red before Hurricane Harvey. Congress will no doubt appropriate funding to pay all flood insurance claims, thus increasing the national debt. This in turn will cause the Federal Reserve to print more money to monetize that debt, thus hastening the arrival of the fiscal hurricane that will devastate the US economy. Yet, there is little talk of offsetting any of the costs of hurricane relief with spending cuts! Congress should start phasing out the federal flood insurance program by forbidding the issuance of new flood insurance policies. It should also begin reducing federal spending on disaster assistance. Instead, costs associated with disaster recovery should be made 100-percent tax-deductible. Those who suffered the worst should be completely exempted from all federal tax liability for at least two years. Tax-free savings accounts could also help individuals save money to help them bear the costs of a natural disaster. The outpouring of private giving and volunteer relief efforts we have witnessed over the past week shows that the American people can effectively respond to natural disasters if the government would get out of their way.
Via StockBoardAsset.com, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order clearing the way for local police in America to receive military gear such as grenade launchers, high-calibre weapons, and armored vehicles. Trump and the DOJ have just reversed former President Barack Obama’s restrictions that allows local police departments to receive surplus military equipment. Per ABCNews, Restoring the program will “ensure that you can get the lifesaving gear that you need to do your job,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions told a cheering crowd at a national convention of the Fraternal Order of Police in Nashville, Tennessee. The group, America’s largest organization of rank-and-file officers, endorsed Trump for president after he promised to revamp the program. The big move by Trump comes at a time where American inner cities such as Baltimore and Chicago are in absolute turmoil. The President has been very vocal about the prior administration’s unfair criticism of police forces and it was an easy win to appease his core supporters. On the other hand, civil liberties groups and various lawmakers are not enthused about the militarization of local police and argue this will only lead to a further escalation of violence. Kanya Bennett, legislative counsel for the ACLU, “Tensions between law enforcement and communities remain high, yet the president and the attorney general are giving the police military-grade weaponry instead of practical, effective ways to protect and serve everyone” Let’s not kid ourselves, America by the day is turning into a police state where power through police force is the objective. The citizens of the police state may experience restrictions on social or financial mobility, or even on their freedom to express or communicate alternative political views. There is another startling development in the Police States of America (PSA), in the next 8-years military drones will be replacing police helicopters. The report from Defense One states “enormous military-style drones” could be policing the skies from 2,000 ft.. Back in 2014-2015, Baltimore was a testing ground for the deep state’s military spy blimps…. Back to the Police States of America (PSA), earlier this year, I was able to see first hand the militarization in Baltimore County’s police force… Conclusion Like it or not, the Police States of America (PSA) is here. This time around the war comes home and the government is preparing through the militarization of local police forces. America is in a transitional period healing itself from decades of democratically controlled leadership in the inner cities, along with massive amounts of deindustrialization that has left our country rotting from the inside. * * * Ron Paul asks "Is a Militarized Police The Answer To Inner City Turmoil?" Is President Trump's decision being "tough on crime," as he likes to claim, or is it all about controlling the population and undermining civil liberties?
Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity, The Senate Intelligence Committee recently passed its Intelligence Authorization Act for 2018 that contains a chilling attack on the First Amendment. Section 623 of the act expresses the “sense of Congress” that WikiLeaks resembles a “non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such.” This language is designed to delegitimize WikiLeaks, encourage the federal government to spy on individuals working with WikiLeaks, and block access to WikiLeaks’ website. This provision could even justify sending US forces abroad to arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange or other WikiLeaks personnel. WikiLeaks critics claim that the organization’s leaks harm US national security. However, these critics are unable to provide a single specific example of WikiLeaks’ actions harming the American people. WikiLeaks does harm the reputations of government agencies and politicians, however. For example, earlier this year WikiLeaks released information on the CIA’s hacking program. The leaks did not reveal any details on operations against foreign targets, but they did let the American people know how easy it is for the government to hack into their electronic devices. For the last year, most of the news surrounding WikiLeaks has centered on its leak of emails showing how prominent Democrats worked to undermine Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. In order to deflect attention from these revelations, Democrats, aided by their allies in the media and even some Republicans, promulgated a conspiracy theory blaming the leaks on Russian hackers working to defeat Hillary Clinton. Even though there is no evidence the Russians were behind the leaks, many in both parties are still peddling the “Putin did it” narrative. This aids an effort by the deep state and its allies in Congress and the media to delegitimize last year’s election, advance a new Cold War with Russia, and criminalize WikiLeaks. If the government is successful in shutting down WikiLeaks by labeling it a “hostile intelligence service,” it will use this tactic to silence other organizations and websites as well. The goal will be to create a climate of fear to ensure no one dares publish the revelations of a future Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning. Some have suggested that criticizing police brutality, the surveillance state, the Federal Reserve, or even federal spending aids “hostile foreign powers” by weakening the people’s “trust in government.” This line of reasoning could be used to silence, in the name of “national security,” websites critical of the welfare-warfare state. By labeling WikiLeaks a “hostile intelligence service” and thus legitimizing government action against the organization, the Senate Intelligence Authorization Act threatens the ability of whistleblowers to inform the public about government misdeeds. It also sets a precedent that could be used to limit other types of free speech. President Trump should make it clear he will veto any bill giving government new powers to silence organizations like WikiLeaks. If President Trump supports the war on WikiLeaks, after candidate Trump proclaimed his love for WikiLeaks, it will be further proof that he has outsourced his presidency to the deep state. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, along with notable whistleblowers, foreign policy experts, and leading champions of peace and liberty, will be addressing this important issue at my Institute for Peace and Prosperity’s conference on Saturday, September 9 at the Dulles Airport Marriott Hotel in Dulles, Virginia outside of Washington, D.C. You can get more information about the conference and purchase tickets at the Ron Paul Institute.
By Matt Agorist In the past few weeks, YouTube has made an unprecedented move to censor political outlets which they claim promote hate speech or...
Former US Congressman Ron Paul has joined a growing list of independent political journalists and commentators who’re being economically punished by YouTube despite producing videos that routinely receive hundreds of thousands of views. In a tweet published Saturday, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange tweeted a screenshot of Paul’s “Liberty Report” page showing that his videos had been labeled “not suitable” for all advertisers by YouTube's content arbiters. YouTube economically censors former presidential candidate @RonPaul for criticizing U.S. foreign policy on Afghanistan and WikiLeaks. pic.twitter.com/AnC88rZkhO — Julian Assange ???? (@JulianAssange) August 26, 2017 Assange claims that Paul was being punished for speaking out about President Donald Trump’s decision to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan, after Paul published a video on the subject earlier this week. The notion that YouTube would want to economically punish a former US Congressman for sharing his views on US foreign policy – a topic that he is unequivocally qualified to speak about – is absurd. Furthermore, the “review requested” marking on one of Paul's videos reveals that they were initially flagged by users before YouTube's moderators confirmed that the videos were unsuitable for a broad audience. Other political commentators who’ve been censored by YouTube include Paul Joseph Watson and Tim Black – both ostensibly for sharing political views that differ from the mainstream neo-liberal ideology favored by the Silicon Valley elite. Last week, Google – another Alphabet Inc. company – briefly banned Salil Mehta, an adjunct professor at Columbia and Georgetown who teaches probability and data science, from using its service, freezing his accounts without providing an explanation. He was later allowed to return to the service. Conservative journalist Lauren Southern spoke out about YouTube’s drive to stifle politically divergent journalists and commentators during an interview with the Daily Caller. “I think it would be insane to suggest there’s not an active effort to censor conservative and independent views,” said Southern. “Considering most of Silicon Valley participate in the censorship of alleged ‘hate speech,’ diversity hiring and inclusivity committees. Their entire model is based around a far left outline. There’s no merit hiring, there’s no support of free speech and there certainly is not an equal representation of political views at these companies.” Of course, Google isn’t the only Silicon Valley company that’s enamored with censorship. Facebook has promised to eradicate “fake news,” which, by its definition, includes political content that falls outside of the mainstream. Still, economically punishing a former US Congressman and medical doctor is a new low in Silicon Valley's campaign to stamp out dissent.
While over 300,000 Americans have signed a petition demanding the US government formally recognize AntiFa a terrorist organization (and some 'cells' calling for "all-out revolution"), the US mainstream media continues to provide cover for the violent leftist organization (as do college professors). However, in Europe, German authorities have banned the most influential AntiFa website in the wake of violence that occured last month outside the G20 summit in Hamburg. In an unprecedented move against violent left-wing extremism, Germany’s Interior Ministry informed the owners of the left-wing site about the crackdown Friday, the Local reported. Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière claimed the website helped incite the violence in Hamburg and warned of “serious consequences” of left-wing radicalism, the New York Times reported. “The prelude to the G-20 summit in Hamburg was not the only time that violent actions and attacks on infrastructural facilities were mobilized on linksunten.indymedia,” the minister said, identifying the website. He also said the site tried to “legitimize violence against police officers,” which he described as an “expression of an attitude that tramples human dignity.” “This is absolutely unacceptable and incompatible with our liberal democratic order,” he added. Fox News reports that, according to the Local, Germany’s internal spy agency once described the website, which has operated since 2008, as “the most important platform for violent left-wing extremism in Germany. For years it has been providing a forum for people to publish first-hand reports on left-wing crimes.” The violent clashes between the Antifa and police led to around 476 police officers being injured, while around 186 demonstrators were arrested and 225 were temporarily detained. The Interior Ministry said the website was shut down because it “goes directly against the law in both its aims and actions,” Spiegel reported. The police, meanwhile, searched the properties connected to the owners of the radical website in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. “At the moment several premises are being searched,” said Thomas Strobl, the state’s interior minister. “This step marks a major blow against the extreme left in Germany,” he added. Following the announced closure, the extremist website now directs visitors to a “what to do” article calling the government’s move an “authoritarian crackdown.” It also urges people to spread “revolutionary material and ideas everywhere” and come up with “alternative ways to communicate with each other and the general public in times of intensifying state censorship and control.” Notably, as Ron Paul recently explained, the alt-right and its leftist opponents are two sides of the same authoritarian coin. The alt-right elevates racial identity over individual identity. The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system. Some prominent alt-right leaders even support abortion as a way of limiting the minority population. No one who sincerely supports individual liberty, property rights, or the right to life can have any sympathy for this type of racial collectivism. Antifa, like all Marxists, elevates class identity over individual identity. Antifa supporters believe government must run the economy because otherwise workers will be exploited by greedy capitalists. This faith in central planning ignores economic reality, as well as the reality that in a free market employers and workers voluntarily work together for their mutual benefit. It is only when government intervenes in the economy that crony capitalists have the opportunity to exploit workers, consumers, and taxpayers. Sadly, many on the left confuse the results of the “mixed economy” with free markets. Ironically, the failure of the Keynesian model of economic authoritarianism, promoted by establishment economists like Paul Krugman, is responsible for the rise of the alt-right and antifa. While we should be willing to form coalitions with individuals of good will across the political spectrum, we must never align with anyone promoting violence as a solution to social and economic problems. We must also oppose any attempts to use the violence committed by extremists as a justification for expanding the police state or infringing on free speech. Laws against hate speech set a dangerous precedent for censorship of speech unpopular with the ruling elite and the deep state. Libertarians have several advantages in the ideological battle over what we will replace the Keynesian welfare model with. First, we do not need to resort to scapegoating and demagoguing, as we have the truth about the welfare-warfare state and the Federal Reserve on our side. We also offer a realistic way to restore prosperity. But our greatest advantage is that, while authoritarianism divides people by race, class, religion, or other differences, the cause of liberty unites all who seek peace and prosperity.
Authored by Bonner & Partners' Bill Bonner, annotated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum, Lighting a Candle On Tuesday, Donald Trump, president of all the Americans, said his country would spend more blood and money trying to force the Afghans to do what it wants them to do, whatever that is. If you are destined to stay on the Afghan plantation forever, might as well plant something. [PT] And so… a darkness covered the land. From Sioux City to Savannah, a shadow passed between Earth and sun. Strange and fearful events were reported. A calf was born with two heads outside of Des Moines. Pomegranate trees flowered in Manhattan. An LGBTQQ+ person wondered WTF? The people were so afraid. Nowhere was the darkness deeper than in the nation’s capital. There, no light shone. No flicker of awareness… observation… learning… or reflection appeared. Hello, darkness. Donald J. Trump had promised to light a candle. But it was nowhere to be seen. Five years ago, he said, “Ron Paul is right.” The Afghanistan adventure was “wasting our money.” It was a “total disaster,” he added. He asked, “What are we doing there? These people hate us.” Then, a year later, he said, “We should leave Afghanistan immediately.” And in his bid for the White House, he had offered something better. “America First,” he called it. Instead of trying, fruitlessly, to build a better country in the Hindu Kush, he would try to build a better country at home! No more losing wars. No more strangling regulations. No more losing deals with the rest of the world. Even from the mouth of Donald Trump, these promises sounded good, good enough to win the nation’s highest office. Ron Paul on the newest Afghanistan surge plans. He’s still right. Democratic Sham You will recall, the election of Donald J. Trump brought controversy to the Diary; many Dear Readers got very cross with us. Today, we back up to look at what the fuss was all about. In the first place, we believe that democracy, as practiced in a big, degenerate empire, is largely a sham. Voting is a waste of time; we said so then. In the second place, we thought the Deep State – the few insiders who really run the government – had either already made peace with Mr. Trump or would soon do so, after the election. In the third place, we identified a chief cause of America’s economic malaise (as well as many of its other problems): the fake-money system, which encourages the buildup of debt and enriches Wall Street while reducing the real output and wealth of the Main Street economy. In the fourth place, this fake-money system is the source of funding for the Deep State. It cannot give it up, no matter who is president. As long as this system remains in place, the Deep State will continue to grow – by legislation, regulation, hook or crook. How it works, roughly In the fifth place, you can’t really build a decent economy on phony money, debt, and forcing win-lose deals on the public. Each day that passes adds more debt, more complexity, and more misallocation of resources. Sooner or later, the whole shebang is going to blow up. Just hours after the results came in last November, our view looked basically right. The new president gathered in the two most important branches of the Deep State – the Gunmen (representing the military-security industries) and the Goldmen (representing Goldman Sachs and Wall Street). Obviously, a deal had been struck – or tacitly acknowledged. Wall Street and the Pentagon – “my generals” – were already part of the team. With them in place, Trump could be Trump with no fear of disrupting the Deep State’s privileges and position. “No… he’s going to shake things up,” readers protested. “He’s our only hope…” “Give him time.” But time and money are running out. Ticking Clock On Tuesday, under pressure from the generals, Donald Trump abandoned the promise of an “America First” foreign policy. The U.S. has lost 2,350 soldiers in Afghanistan… and spent $1 trillion. And not to forget – the US was already almost out of there! – click to enlarge. And now, even more resources will be brought to bear so that the longest, most pointless war in U.S. history can continue. Trump himself may be in favor of change. But U.S. foreign policy under the Trump administration is the same as it was under Barack Obama. It favors the Deep State’s military-security industries – as it has for at least the last 17 years. There is no change to Obamacare or any other significant domestic program, either. The Deep State’s zombie support/medical-educational-retirement transfer programs remain in place, too. But while Trump and the media focus on Confederate monuments, Russia, North Korea, transsexuals… and whirlwind crises, the clock ticks. The feds have only enough cash for about six weeks of operations. Then, they will bump up against the current debt ceiling. The Deep State must raise the debt ceiling in order to keep the fake money flowing. But raising the debt ceiling may not be easy. Conservative Republicans will want to know: “With the national debt already headed to $30 trillion, just where do we think we’re going?” “We’ll agree to raise the debt ceiling,” say the liberal Democrats, “but only if you leave O’Care alone.” “Hey, what about that bridge in my district?” asks the independent. And so, the darkness spreads… Raise the debt ceiling! It’s for a good cause!
Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute, There is a common naïve view among many conservatives — and other supporters of a bloated military establishment — that foreign policy is made as part of a rational process in which foreign threats are assessed, and then requests are made to Congress to fund projects that "keep America safe." This credulous approach to foreign policy — expressed by many millions of "red-blooded" Americans who fancy themselves as the hard-nosed, realist "adults in the room" — ignores the immense amount of domestic political power wielded by the military and its allies in the private sector. The advocates of this view instead defer to the belief that the military's current drive for ever-more spending and military build-up in Afghanistan is based on revelations about the "real threat" in Afghanistan, and that the military is driven only by a selfless desire to "kill terrorists." Meanwhile, American policy aimed toward perpetual occupation of Afghanistan has little to do with actual defense of the North American mainland, and much more to do with domestic politics. Daniel McAdams recently examined the bizarre American preference for occupying Afghanistan while considering Saudi Arabia to be a great "ally": A gang of radical Saudis attacked the US on 9/11. Their leader, Osama bin Laden, was a CIA favorite when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. ... Osama's radicals roamed from country to country until they were able to briefly settle in chaotic late 1990s Afghanistan for a time. They plotted the attack on the US from Florida, Germany, and elsewhere. They allegedly had a training camp in Afghanistan. We know from the once-secret 28 pages of the Congressional Intelligence Committee report on 9/11 that they had Saudi state sponsorship. ...Bin Laden's group of Saudis attacked the US on 9/11. Washington's neocons attacked Afghanistan and then Iraq in retaliation, neither of which had much to do with bin Laden or 9/11. Certainly not when compared to the complicity of the Saudi government at the highest levels. ...Sixteen years — and trillions of dollars and thousands of US military lives — later no one knows what the goals are in Afghanistan. Not even Trump, which is why he said tonight that he would no longer discuss our objectives in Afghanistan but instead would just concentrate on "killing terrorists." This is what American policy amounts to in Afghanistan. No clear objective has ever been stated for the occupation there, while one of the world's biggest sponsors of Islamic terrorism — Saudi Arabia — remains on the Best Friends list. A More Sober, Realist View Nevertheless, conservatives and other interventionists stick dogmatically to the claim that more intervention is always better. When specifically confronted with dissenting views from libertarians such as Ron Paul, interventionists invent a caricature of their critics and claim that anyone who disagrees with them is a pie-in-the-sky anarchist utopian who thinks there are no "bad guys" in the world. In reality, these endless occupations are frequently opposed by foreign policy realists such as Andrew Bacevich and John Mearshimer to name only two. The realists, of course, set their foreign policy in accordance with increasing actual military defensive capability. Realists are anything but believers in the boundless good will of human beings — and they're certainly not Rothbardians — but they also understand, as Mearshimer put it, the "basic realist view" is "these interventions [i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan] have not been good for the United States." Other realists have also recognized the absurdity of comparing the current terrorist threat to past conflicts such as the Cold War. In 2007, Harvey Sapolsky, et al — none of them Rothbardians, to say the least — wrote at World Affairs: No nation or ideology now menaces American security in the same ways or to the same degree that the Soviet Union and Communism did during the Cold War. Instead, a variety of ethnic, religious, and nationalistic conflicts oceans away from us now obsess our policymakers, even though those conflicts have little to no prospect of spreading our way. To be sure, radical Islamists have attacked Americans at home and abroad, and while these attackers should be hunted down, they do not pose an existential threat, only a difficult and distracting one. Killing or capturing the criminals who attack Americans makes sense; trying to fix the failed states they call home is hopeless and unnecessary. The United States is safer than ever. This, of course, is not what we hear from the military itself, or from the Republican party. In that case, we hear nearly an endless litany about how the military is near "collapse" and how it has been "gutted" and how, thanks to Obama, the military is now on a shoestring budget. In truth, the military is still funded at Reagan-era Cold War levels. In the jejune minds of much of the American public, though, it's never a possibility that the military acts in its own financial self interest. If the military says it needs more taxpayer money, then, well, they must be given what they want. Why, a military officer would never lie or bend the truth! The Role of Domestic Policy So if the US current spate of military interventions are both damaging and unnecessary, why do these military operations continue unabated? Part of it, as we've noted, is due to the public's tendency to always defer to the pro-military position. Frankly, the American public's ideological views tend toward indifference toward foreign policy, or outright militarism. There is a reason that no major candidate running for president in 2016 advocated for any significant cut in military spending. Even Donald Trump, who — at the time — claimed to oppose the ongoing occupations, advocated for massive increases in military spending. With the public reliably on the military's side, the debate then boils down to how much of the budget the military industry can wrest from other special interests. Again, on the side of the military establishment is the large swath of the American population that benefits financially from taxpayer funds being funneled to military spending schemes. These have many economic benefits for certain groups. It has long been true, for instance, that the US military is a jobs program. As we've noted here are mises.org, military personnel tend to make more money than their peers of similar education levels working the private sector. But the beneficiaries of an expansive military establishment extend far beyond the people who can be defined as active military personnel. Sapolsky has noted that, in spite of frequent claims that military personnel make up only one percent of the population, the real number of people whose paychecks rely on military spending is actually much larger: In fact, more than 1% of Americans are involved in America’s defense. In addition to the two plus million service personnel—the 1.4 million active duty and 800,000 plus in the reserve components—there are 800,000 plus civil service employees of the Department of Defense—people who work in military depots, defense laboratories, shipyards, and contract management offices—and five to six million (the exact number is not known) contract employees—people who build weapon systems, provide support services, and conduct defense related research. This totals to 3-4% of the adult population. Add spouses and other family members, and you can see that not an insignificant portion of the American population is involved in defense. In other words, we're looking at more than 12 million Americans who rely on military spending. For comparison's sake, we can note that the the total number of people in the US working in agriculture totals less than 3 million people. Nor should those 12 million Americans worry that they're not being looked after on Capitol Hill. According to Open Secrets, in 2016 there were more than 752 defense-sector lobbyists working in DC, representing 223 clients. It's unlikely this total includes state-level politicians who engage in informal lobbying in favor of more military spending in their districts and states. In some states, such as Virginia and Hawaii, military spending is equal in size to more than 12 percent of the state's total GDP. Needless to say, mayors and governors in these areas won't exactly be complaining if the President announced yet another military occupation. Each additional ratcheting up in military action means more training exercises, more weapons testing, more spending by soldiers in the local economy. Thus, when we hear that a variety of policymakers are united in their call for more military spending, there is no reason at all to assume this is due to some important change in the international environment. It's far more likely that domestic political conditions have changed in such a way that the Pentagon realizes the political situation has swung in its favor. Certainly, this has been the case with the arrival of the Trump administration. Republicans have long received more funding from defense lobbyists than Democrats, and even before Trump was sworn in, it was assumed that a military spending binge was on the way. And, in spite of claims that the Trump administration is merely the continuation of the Obama adminsitration's foreign policy, there is good reason to believe that the Trump administration is actually a departure from the Obama years — in a more militaristic direction. While military spending did not actually suffer to any meaningful extent under Obama, some observers believe there was nevertheless an antagonism between the Obama White House and the Pentagon. As Mearshimer claims here, had the Deep State been less powerful, Obama may have actually been successful in withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan. As it was, Obama settled for a rapproachment with Cuba and Iran — two moves that infuriated foreign interventionists. Are There Any Real Limits on Military Spending? Mearshimer is speculating here, but even if he's right about what Obama would have preferred to do, how would a drawdown of troops benefit Obama politically? As a politician, there's actually very little to be gained from military withdrawal. As we've already noted, the political and economic rewards of expanding military spending and operations can be substantial. This is especially true in the modern world when the political downside of military operations is very small. Historically, the downside of starting a war or sending troops to foreign soil was twofold: It was expensive. Dead and wounded soldiers were politically damaging. Nowadays, the first problem can be solved with deficit spending, and by inflating the money supply. The financial costs of war are palmed off on future generations who have no say in the current policy debate. The second issue is now mostly solved as well. While, as McAdams points out, more than 2,000 American lives have been lost in the Afghanistan occupation, that's a total that accumulated over more than a decade. Compared to large military operations of the past, these are very small numbers. Military spending nowadays focuses on producing weapons and material that can be used while minimizing the danger to the American soldiers themselves. The drone program — in which American soldiers drop bombs on children from the safety of a warehouse in North America — is a perfect example of this. Moreover, when casualties do occur, they are inflicted on volunteers. Nor do these deaths disproportionately fall on poor or minority soldiers. As analyses have shown, poor and minority soldiers tend to volunteer for work in medical and logistical fields. The front-line combat positions tend to go to educated white people. So, there's no especially damaging political cost to sending more troops to central Asia to conduct yet another occupation. Yes, there will be some deaths, but calculating politicians know that casualties are unlikely to occur in such numbers as to cancel out the political benefits of starting a nice new war. The Afghanistan Escalation Thus, how can anyone be truly surprised that Donald Trump — who once fiercely mocked supporters of the Afghanistan occupation — has now changed his mind. Trump, of course, is a man who apparently is swayed by photographs of mini-skirts rather than by anything resembling serious historical analysis. As he has become increasingly isolated politically, he has seen an opportunity to shore up his political base with yet another military expansion - one that's likely to come with a lot more spending. Even worse, Trump may become even more bellicose the less popular he becomes. Domestic concerns won't be mentioned in the dominant narrative however. The administration and the Pentagon will invent a justification for why a new war is necessary, and the media, of course, will happily play along.
Authored by Tho Bishop via The Mises Institute, Ever since entering the Senate, Rand Paul has continued his father’s work in advocating for an audit of the Federal Reserve. This week, writing for the Daily Caller, Senator Paul renewed his efforts, illustrating how the recent era of unconventional monetary policy has made an audit all the more important: In 2009, then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was able to refuse to tell Congress who received over two trillion in Fed loans, and it took congressional action and a Bloomberg lawsuit to force the Fed to reveal the details of what it did in more than 21,000 transactions involving trillions of dollars during the 2008 financial crisis. A one-time audit of the Fed’s emergency lending mandated by Congress revealed even more about the extent to which the Fed put taxpayers on the hook. When pushed to defend the lack of transparency for the Federal Reserve, officials like Janet Yellen and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin point to the myth of the Fed independence - a position that requires outright ignorance of the history of America’s central bank and the executive branch. Of course it’s quite usual for the Senate to base the merits of legislation entirely off of fallacious arguments, so they have continued to be the legislative body holding up a Fed audit with little indication they are prepared to move. Given that reality, it is time for Senator Rand Paul to change his approach and introduce another piece of legislation from his father’s archives: the Free Competition in Currency Act. While not as catchy as “End the Fed”, this piece of legislation – inspired by the work of F.A. Hayek – was perhaps Ron Paul’s most radical pieces of legislation. The idea was quite simple: eliminate legal tender laws mandating the use of US Dollars and remove the taxes Federal and State governments place on alternative currencies - such as gold and silver. While the original legislation did apply to “tokens,” an updated version should explicitly include the growing market of cryptocurrencies as a good with monetary value that should not be taxed. What this would do is create a more even playing field between the dollar and alternative currencies, allowing an easy way for Americans to safeguard their wealth if they ever have reason to doubt the wisdom of the Federal Reserve’s policies. Just as Senator Paul advocated for the ability of Americans to be able to opt-out of the failing Obamacare system, this bill would grant Americans a lifeboat should the weaknesses inherent with the Fed’s fiat money regime expose themselves. Unlike most examples of monetary policy reforms, which tend to be the products of ivory tower echo chambers, competition in currency would reflect active political trends. In recent years, states like Texas, Utah, and – in 2017 – Arizona have passed laws allowing the use of silver and gold for use in transactions. Meanwhile, other countries have looked to embrace the potential of cryptocurrencies for their monetary regimes. This makes this not only an idea that is good on paper, but one whose time has come. As alluded to before, simply because a policy makes sense does not mean the Senate will act on it. That doesn’t mean the conversation and debate isn’t worth having. While it may still be on the horizon, there has been a steady drumbeat in Washington for the Federal Reserve to face some sort of reform. For two Congressional sessions in a row, the House has passed legislation explicitly calling for the Fed to embrace a “rules-based monetary system.” While this approach may sound better than today’s PhD standard, it doesn’t solve the problems inherent with central banking and fiat money. Monetary rules such as “NGD Targeting” – which has the support of a rare coalition including the Cato Institute, Mercatus Center, Christina Romer, and Paul Krugman — should never be seen as a “reasonable compromise” for those skeptical about the Fed. Instead it’s simply another way of disguising central planning in a way to make it more palpable to the public, and therefore more difficult to stop. By putting this bill out there, Rand Paul can help frame the debate and bring a real solution to the table. Something that wouldn't force the Fed to change a single thing, only making them compete on the market like the producer of other good or service. After all, as is the case with healthcare, or shoes, the best sort of “monetary policy” is competition on the market. Not one dictated by government.
In an extended tweetstorm conccurrent with Trump's Monday night Afghanistan address, Ron Paul lashed out at the president, saying that at long last, Trump's neo-con nature had emerged. "Steve Bannon brakes removed. Neocons feeling their oats" and urging the public to "Beware! @LindseyGrahamSC loves Trump's speech! Why are arch-neocons celebrating so much? Very telling!." It appears that Paul's assessment of Trump's new strategy was not far off, because as the Hill reports today, the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party applauded President Trump’s troop surge in Afghanistan, even as members of the president’s base accused him of capitulating to the national security establishment. Some of the loudest accolades came from foreign policy hawks in the Senate, including two of Trump’s fiercest GOP critics, Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who praised Trump for going against his “instinct” and delegating the decision to his generals, who convinced him that victory could be had in the 16-year war that has spanned three administrations. “I’m proud. I’m relieved,” Graham said on Fox News after Trump’s Monday night address. “I’m proud of the fact that President Trump made a national security decision, not a political decision. I’m proud of the fact that he listened to the generals, and I’m most proud of the fact that he showed the will to stand up to radical Islam. I’m relieved he did not take the advice to withdraw, which would have been disastrous, or create a mercenary army, so I’m very pleased. Very thoughtful, very inspiring speech, and I can assure you a lot of people in Congress will be behind the president.” McCain echoed Graham, saying Trump was moving beyond former President Obama’s “failed strategy of merely postponing defeat,” although it was not exactly clear how since Trump was doing precisely what Obama (and Hillary Clinton did and would have one), adding that it was “especially important” that Trump did not commit to a timeline for withdrawal. Marco Rubio, another proponent of foreign US intervention and a "muscular" foreign policy, called Trump’s strategy “the right approach.” New #AfghanStrategy based on the conditions on ground not on arbitrary numbers and timelines is the right approach — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) August 22, 2017 Support also came from prominent neoconservative writers and thinkers who had long been worried that Trump, who ran on an “America First” platform, would take a more isolationist approach to foreign policy. John Podhoretz, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and the editor of the conservative magazine Commentary, reacted to the speech by saying it’s almost as if Bush’s former deputy secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, has been put in charge. In the end we are all neocons pic.twitter.com/gJBqc7TJVE — John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) August 22, 2017 "President Trump’s decision to recommit to Afghanistan was right and important,” wrote American Enterprise Institute scholar Fred Kagan, another proponent of neoconservatism. The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, a key voice behind every single recent US war and intervention, a “Never Trump” Republican and another "uber" neocon, reveled in the fact that Trump’s generals appeared to have won the power struggle over his nationalist advisers, like former chief strategist Stephen Bannon. Out: Flynn, Priebus, Bannon.In: McMaster and Kelly.There are limits to the difference advisors can make, but that is a massive upgrade. — Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) August 22, 2017 Meanwhile Breitbart, where former Trump advisor Steve Bannon return to after last week's latest White House staff fireworks, ran a story on Tuesday saying that “Trump’s 'America First' base” is unhappy with the president’s “flip-flop Afghanistan speech,” along with a host of stories highlighting GOP establishment support for Trump’s new strategy. “President Trump’s ‘America First’ base was the biggest loser of Trump’s speech on Afghanistan Monday night, and many quickly expressed their disappointment at the business-as-usual address from the president who had once promised to limit American intervention abroad and focus on nation-building at home,” Breitbart reporter Adam Shaw wrote. Predictably Ron Paul's son, senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a prominent non-interventionist whose views on foreign policy are derided by the conservative foreign policy establishment, bemoaned the costs to the military and taxpayers for the continuing war: “I strongly disagree with the president’s actions here. If the president and my colleagues want to continue the war in Afghanistan, then at the very least Congress should vote on it. I’ll insist they do it this fall, and I’ll be leading the charge for 'no.' " Finally, Laura Ingraham, a pro-Trump, anti-establishment conservative radio personality, tweeted: I thought we were going to drain the swamp in Washington, not clear the desert in Afghanistan. https://t.co/gQFnQjoj0n — Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) August 22, 2017 Not surprisingly, the harshest criticism for Trump's new foreign policy came from the founder of private military company Blackwater, who ripped Trump’s new Afghanistan war plan as an “Obama-lite policy.” Erik Prince who for obvious reason has encouraged administration officials to use contractors instead of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, called Trump’s plan “a continuation of the same limited or failed strategy of the last 16 years.... This is a kind of Obama-lite policy,” Prince told The Hill, referring to President Obama’s 30,000 troop surge in 2009 in Afghanistan. The increase brought the total number of troops in the country to more than 100,000 in 2011 before a rapid drawdown. “This is a lighter but almost as expensive version. Remember, the Pentagon now is spending as much as when they had five times as many troops in the country. It’s horrendous how they’ve lost control of the spending. That’s what makes this so unsustainable,” Prince added. “He said it’s not a blank check, but the Pentagon continues to stand and plan and operationalize as if it is a blank check,” Prince said. “That’s the fundamental problem the plan now doesn’t address: How does this end. The Pentagon wants to position this like a forever occupation like South Korea. And I think that’s a horrendous and untenable position.” Surprisingly, Prince was doubtful that the president and Defense Secretary James Mattis are fully behind the strategy: “I don’t think the president loves this plan, I don’t think Secretary Mattis does either. He’s not even on the same continent,” Prince said, referring to Mattis’s current trip to the Middle East and Europe. So if neither Trump, nor his chief military advisor "loved" the plan - and yet every prominent neo-con did - one wonders, just where did this plan come from?
Authored by Jacob Grandstaff via Campus Reform, Two professors, one from Purdue University and the other from Stanford University, are assembling a "Campus Antifascist Network" (CAN) to serve as a “big tent” for “anyone committed to fighting fascism.” Despite the reputation Antifa groups have cultivated for employing violence to shut down opposing speakers, the professors insist that they only support "self-defense" by "those who are being threatened by fascists.” Two professors are organizing a campus Antifa (Anti-Fascist Action) organization with the goal of confronting groups it considers fascist and “driv[ing] racists off campuses.” According to Inside Higher Ed, the Campus Antifascist Network (CAN) was organized by Purdue University Professor Bill Mullen and Stanford University Professor David Palumbo-Liu with the intention of serving as a “big tent” for “anyone committed to fighting fascism.” “Since Trump’s election, fascists, neo-fascists, and their allies have used blatantly Islamophobic, anti-semitic, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, and ableist messaging and iconography to recruit to their ranks and intimidate students, faculty, and staff,” Palumbo-Liu wrote in the group’s invitation letter. “The time to take action is now,” he maintained, saying, “we call on all interested individuals and organizations to support or join the Campus Antifascist Network (CAN).” In an interview with Campus Reform, Palumbo-Liu reiterated that “the groups that concern [CAN] the most are fascist in the sense they espouse a hateful ideology that targets particular groups based on race, ethnicity, religion, [or] sexuality, and wish to dominate, exclude, drive out, and harm members of those groups with force and violence.” As part of its efforts, CAN provides a syllabus which labels fascism as a “historical expression of capitalism’s tendency to dominate the poor, working class, and oppressed people.” Mullen told IHE that the network has grown to 200 members, including students and faculty, in the wake of the events in Charlottesville, Virginia, adding that CAN will “build large, unified demonstrations against fascists on campuses” and protect groups that are vulnerable to attack. While Mullen and Palumbo-Liu do not advocate direct violence, Antifa has been criticized for engaging in violent protests around the country, including riots against conservative speakers. When asked about violent elements within Antifa, Palumbo-Liu told IHE that CAN would reject some elements of the movement and would only “advocate self-defense and defense in various forms of those who are being threatened by fascists.” Palumbo-Liu likewise told Campus Reform that “physically attacking speakers is not [within the law],” and therefore is not something that his organization promotes. “The issue really is not speech, but rather the kinds of actions a group is known to engage in that precisely impinge upon others’ free speech, academic freedom, and civil liberties,” he said. “We are organizing to protect members of campus communities from groups that come to campus to provoke physical confrontations, purposefully destroy property, invade individuals’ privacy.” The professor also pushed back on the view that President Trump is not a fascist, branding it as “literally an academic argument in the worst sense of the word” and declaring that “we need to pay attention to what is happening, not the labels that we feel are most fitting.” Mullen did not respond to Campus Reform’s request for comment. * * * As Ron Paul explained earlier, the alt-right and its leftist opponents are two sides of the same authoritarian coin. The alt-right elevates racial identity over individual identity. The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system. Some prominent alt-right leaders even support abortion as a way of limiting the minority population. No one who sincerely supports individual liberty, property rights, or the right to life can have any sympathy for this type of racial collectivism. Antifa, like all Marxists, elevates class identity over individual identity. Antifa supporters believe government must run the economy because otherwise workers will be exploited by greedy capitalists. This faith in central planning ignores economic reality, as well as the reality that in a free market employers and workers voluntarily work together for their mutual benefit. It is only when government intervenes in the economy that crony capitalists have the opportunity to exploit workers, consumers, and taxpayers. Sadly, many on the left confuse the results of the “mixed economy” with free markets. * * * Oh, and as a reminder, the petition to label AntiFa a terrorist group now has over 250,000 signatures.
Authored by Daniel McAdams via The Mises Institute, Like me, many of you watched President Trump's train wreck of a speech on Afghanistan earlier tonight. It's nearly midnight and I am still reeling. I guess it was too much to ask to hear him admit the obvious and draw the obvious conclusions: After 16 years - the longest war in US history - no one even remembers what we are fighting for in Afghanistan. The war is over. Not another American (or innocent Afghan) life for one of the most convoluted and idiotic wars in history! Trump of 2012 and 2013 said just that. Candidate Trump said just that. Then tonight he told us that once you sit in that chair in the Oval Office you see things differently. What does that mean? Once elected you betray your promises so as to please the deep state? Here's the truth that neither President Trump nor his newfound neocon coterie can deny: 1) A gang of radical Saudis attacked the US on 9/11. Their leader, Osama bin Laden, was a CIA favorite when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. He clearly listed his grievances after he fell out with his CIA sponsors: US sanctions in Iraq were killing innocents; US policy grossly favored the Israelis in the conflict with Palestinians; and US troops in his Saudi holy land were unacceptable. 2) Osama's radicals roamed from country to country until they were able to briefly settle in chaotic late 1990s Afghanistan for a time. They plotted the attack on the US from Florida, Germany, and elsewhere. They allegedly had a training camp in Afghanistan. We know from the once-secret 28 pages of the Congressional Intelligence Committee report on 9/11 that they had Saudi state sponsorship. 3) Bin Laden's group of Saudis attacked the US on 9/11. Washington's neocons attacked Afghanistan and then Iraq in retaliation, neither of which had much to do with bin Laden or 9/11. Certainly not when compared to the complicity of the Saudi government at the highest levels. 4) Sixteen years -- and trillions of dollars and thousands of US military lives -- later no one knows what the goals are in Afghanistan. Not even Trump, which is why he said tonight that he would no longer discuss our objectives in Afghanistan but instead would just concentrate on "killing terrorists." Gen. Mike Flynn had it right in 2015 when he said that the US drone program was creating more terrorists than it was killing. Trump's foolish escalation will do the same. It will fail because it cannot do otherwise. It will only create more terrorists to justify more US intervention. And so on until our financial collapse. The US government cannot kill its way to peace in Afghanistan. Or anywhere else.
Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity, Following the recent clashes between the alt-right and the group antifa, some libertarians have debated which group they should support. The answer is simple: neither. The alt-right and its leftist opponents are two sides of the same authoritarian coin. The alt-right elevates racial identity over individual identity. The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system. Some prominent alt-right leaders even support abortion as a way of limiting the minority population. No one who sincerely supports individual liberty, property rights, or the right to life can have any sympathy for this type of racial collectivism. Antifa, like all Marxists, elevates class identity over individual identity. Antifa supporters believe government must run the economy because otherwise workers will be exploited by greedy capitalists. This faith in central planning ignores economic reality, as well as the reality that in a free market employers and workers voluntarily work together for their mutual benefit. It is only when government intervenes in the economy that crony capitalists have the opportunity to exploit workers, consumers, and taxpayers. Sadly, many on the left confuse the results of the “mixed economy” with free markets. Ironically, the failure of the Keynesian model of economic authoritarianism, promoted by establishment economists like Paul Krugman, is responsible for the rise of the alt-right and antifa. Despite a recent (and likely short-lived) upturn in some sectors of the economy, many Americans continue to struggle with unemployment and a Federal Reserve-caused eroding standard of living. History shows that economic hardship causes many to follow demagogues offering easy solutions and convenient scapegoats. Left-wing demagogues scapegoat businesses and the “one percent,” ignoring the distinction between those who made their fortunes serving consumers and those who enriched themselves by manipulating the political process. Right-wing demagogues scapegoat immigrants and minorities, ignoring how these groups suffer under the current system and how they are disproportionally impacted by policies like the war on drugs and police militarization. As the Keynesian-Krugman empire of big government and fiat currency collapses, more people will be attracted to authoritarianism, leading to an increase in violence. The only way to ensure the current system is not replaced with something even worse is for those of us who know the truth to work harder to spread the ideas of liberty. While we should be willing to form coalitions with individuals of good will across the political spectrum, we must never align with anyone promoting violence as a solution to social and economic problems. We must also oppose any attempts to use the violence committed by extremists as a justification for expanding the police state or infringing on free speech. Laws against hate speech set a dangerous precedent for censorship of speech unpopular with the ruling elite and the deep state. Libertarians have several advantages in the ideological battle over what we will replace the Keynesian welfare model with. First, we do not need to resort to scapegoating and demagoguing, as we have the truth about the welfare-warfare state and the Federal Reserve on our side. We also offer a realistic way to restore prosperity. But our greatest advantage is that, while authoritarianism divides people by race, class, religion, or other differences, the cause of liberty unites all who seek peace and prosperity.
Пока от России требовали перестать наносить удары по умеренным сирийским террористам, разрешив только избирательно бомбить НЕ-умеренных, вскрылось, что Госдеп США сам отправил в Сирию Toyota, которые как раз и оказались в руках неумеренных ИГИЛ через умеренных любимых "сукиных сынов" США.Ранее американские власти потребовали от Toyota объяснить наличие у боевиков ИГИЛ большого количества японских внедорожниковфото: REUTERS/StringerАмериканский Институт мира и процветания Рона Пола раскрыл загадку о том, откуда у боевиков ИГИЛ оказались в распоряжении сотни автомобилей марки Toyota. Оказалось, что в 2013–2014 годах Госдеп США и британское правительство поставляли эти джипы «Свободной сирийской армии», которая борется против режима Башара Асада. Политолог Тони Карталуччи ссылается на данные американского радио — Public Radio International и английской газеты The Independent. Ранее власти США потребовали объяснений у компании Toyota.Телеканал ABC News на прошлой неделе сообщил, что антитеррористический департамент минфина США обратился с запросом в компанию Toyota, желая выяснить, как у террористической группировки ИГИЛ оказалось большое количество новых пикапов и внедорожников японской марки — Toyota Land Cruiser, Hilux и др. На видеороликах, снятых в Сирии, Ливии и Ираке, боевики регулярно появляются на оснащенных оружием японских автомобилях.Однако в Toyota отрицают любую причастность к поставкам автомобилей террористам. В ответ на запрос властей США автоконцерн заявил, что не знает, каким образом террористическая организация получила в распоряжение их автомобили.Как пишет Институт мира и процветания Рона Пола, министерство финансов США должно было направить запрос не в Toyota, а в Государственный департамент США. Дело в том, что именно Госдеп отправил джипы марки Toyota в Сирию, как утверждалось, для «Свободной сирийской армии». Международное общественное радио (Public Radio International) в 2014 году опубликовало интервью с советником Национальной коалиции сирийских революционных и оппозиционных сил Оубаи Шахбандаром, где говорится, что Госдепартамент США возобновил отправку помощи сирийским повстанцам, включая 43 пикапа Toyota.«Hiluxes были в списке пожеланий «Свободной сирийской армии», — сообщает PRI.Правительство Великобритании также поставляло транспортные средства сирийским террористам. В 2013 году британская газета The Independent опубликовала материал под названием «Разоблачение: что Запад дал мятежникам Сирии», где говорится, что Великобритания направила оборудования на сумму около £8 млн, в соответствии с официальными бумагами, с которыми ознакомилась The Independent. Так, «помощь» состояла из пяти транспортных средств с баллистической защитой; 20 комплектов бронежилетов; четырех грузовиков (три 25-тонных и один 20-тонный); шести внедорожников; пяти небронированных пикапов; одной эвакуационной машины и пр.Институт мира и процветания Рона Пола заключил, что тайна того, как сотни одинаковых, новеньких автомобилей Toyota попали в Сирию, раскрыта — правительства США и Великобритании фактически собственными руками снабдили боевиков ИГИЛ новеньким автопарком. «Возможно, в Вашингтоне считают, что если правительство США задает вопрос о том, как террористам удалось получить автомобили, никто не будет подозревать, что они сыграли в этом определенную роль», — говорится в сообщении института.
Предприниматель и сооснователь PayPal Питер Тиль собственный успех связывает не с удачей, а с мастерством. В интервью Кэрол Кэдуолладр он рассуждает о высшем образовании, инвестировании в людей и смертности. В1998 году Питер Тиль с партнером основал PayPal, а четыре года спустя продал компанию за 1,5 млрд долларов. Купив 10% Facebook, он стал первым инвестором соцсети (его совет Марку Цукербергу был обманчиво прост: «Только не про*** – и все»). Кроме того, на средства венчурной структуры ЦРУ Тиль основал Palantir Technologies, и компания, как утверждают, помогла найти Усаму бен Ладена. Сегодня Питер – один из самых успешных и влиятельных инвесторов Кремниевой долины, откровенный сторонник либертарианской политики и крупный спонсор различных проектов: от президентской кампании Рона Пола до Seasteading – организации, которая хочет создать в открытом море плавучее национальное государство.Ваша книга «От нуля к единице» (Zero to One) основана на курсе лекций, который вы читали в Стэнфордском университете. При этом вы настаиваете в ней на том, что вузы – это пустая трата денег, что они делают из студентов рабов, не способных мыслить независимо. Нет ли здесь некоего противоречия?Не думаю, что вузы – это категорически плохо. Я думаю, что есть некоторый образовательный пузырь. Учиться все еще важно. Цель, которую я ставил перед собой, читая стэнфордский курс о стартапах и предпринимательстве, заключалась в том, чтобы донести все те знания о бизнесе, которые я приобрел за последние 15 лет в Кремниевой долине как инвестор и предприниматель, собрать их воедино. С книгой то же самое.В декларации вашего Founders Fund написано: «Мы хотели летающих машин, а получили 140 символов». Не кажется ли вам, что это и есть проблема, то, что мы мыслим слишком узко?Мне кажется, две тысячи нынешних сотрудников Twitter и через 10–20 лет будут иметь высокооплачиваемую работу. Это хороший бизнес, но не думаю, что его хватит на то, чтобы привести цивилизацию в будущее. Вовсе не обязательно, что в ближайшие несколько десятилетий будет невероятный технологический прогресс. Я не согласен с Рэймондом Курцвейлом, который говорит, что сингулярность рядом и нужно лишь сидеть и есть попкорн. Для прогресса надо работать, и мы должны его добиться.Корректно ли назвать вас техноутопистом? Летающую машину еще хотите?Я не считаю, что наука и технологии – это автоматически хорошо. Мы же придумали ядерное оружие в XX веке. Но я действительно верю, что без технологического прогресса хорошего будущего быть не может. У нас на планете 7 миллиардов человек. В следующем веке будет 10 миллиардов. Чтобы эти люди жили как в странах первого мира, нужны громадные инновации. Простое копирование не сработает. Если каждый китаец, как каждый американец, будет водить машину, мы получим масштабное загрязнение, нефть кончится. Модели нужно менять.Но вы не думаете, что смерть неизбежна?Мы слишком долго с ней мирились. Мы не должны так кротко погружаться в этот сон. По-моему, этот вопрос – вопрос старения, долголетия и смертности – с самого начала был глубоко в основе всего процесса вдохновения творцов научно-технологической эпохи. И при этом мы все равно знаем о теоретической физике больше, чем, скажем, о питании.Есть ли у нас в таком случае шансы победить смерть?Люди постоянно твердят, что хотят проживать каждый день как последний. У меня же всегда была контрастная позиция. Я бы хотел проживать каждый день, как будто жизнь никогда не закончится. Если бы жизненный цикл был неограничен, мы бы продолжали работать и начинали бы новые большие проекты. Мы бы очень аккуратно относились к окружающим, зная, что столкнемся с ними снова.В вашей книге есть фраза о том, что Кремниевая долина помешалась на «прорывах», как модно сейчас говорить. А три года назад The New Yorker опубликовал о вас справку, где вы называете это слово одним из любимых. Что изменилось? Прорыв надорвался?Мы слишком увязли в напряженной конкуренции. Великие предприятия фокусируются не на том, чтобы делать что-то, чего не делают другие, а на том, чтобы делать то, что ценно само по себе. Точно так же успешная карьера строится не на гонке с остальными – она строится на работе, которая имеет самостоятельную ценность.По-вашему, один из самых спорных вопросов в бизнесе – это вопрос о том, что приносит успех: мастерство или удача. Вы утверждаете, что мастерство. А может, вам просто очень повезло в жизни?Мне действительно повезло, и тяжело точно определить, воспользовался ли я умело возможностями или все это было чистой удачей, ведь эксперимент уже не повторить. Но я полагаю, что как общество мы слишком многое относим на счет удачи. Удача – это как атеистический синоним бога. Мы объясняем ею то, что не понимаем или не хотим понимать. Как венчурный капиталист я считаю, что одна из самых вредных вещей – это воспринимать как лотерейные билеты людей, в которых инвестируешь, и говорить: «Ну, не знаю, заработает ли твой бизнес. Может, да. Может, нет». По-моему, это ужасно – так смотреть на людей. Антилотерейный подход – в том, чтобы постараться обрести высокую уверенность, задать себе вопрос: «Уверен ли я в этом бизнесе настолько, что мог бы к нему присоединиться?»Вы учредили стипендии в 100 тысяч долларов, чтобы молодые люди не шли в вузы, а становились предпринимателями. Но вы сами учились в элитном вузе и добились довольно многого. Не так ли?Жизнь не прожить дважды. Правда в том, что элитные заведения – это хорошая строчка в резюме, но они еще и удивительно сужают фокус, и внимание людей концентрируется на определенных высокопопулярных областях: праве, финансах, немного на медицине, немного на политике. Мне тревожно, потому что те, кто туда идет, наверное, могли бы делать гораздо больше для общества. Если посмотреть на школьных выпускников – они увлеченно мечтают о том, как будут жить дальше. Мне кажется, в системе высшего образования есть нечто, что заставляет очень активно конкурировать, и это выбивает из большинства их мечты.Вы жертвовали огромные деньги политикам, и большинство из них, как Рон Пол, в итоге проиграли. Мне, как неспециалисту, это ужасно напоминает выбрасывание денег на ветер.В финансах я скорее консерватор, а вот социальные взгляды у меня больше либеральные. И я всегда колеблюсь во мнении о том, как далеко нужно заходить в политике. Не бесконечно ли обескураживающее это занятие. Что действительно нужно, как мне кажется, так это продвигать идеи, и Рон Пол таки продвинул ряд либертарианских идей. Он поставил вопросы о различных войнах, где участвуют США, и это было важно.В «Википедии» говорится, что вы входите в управляющий комитет Бильдербергского клуба. Правда ли это, и если да, чем вы там занимаетесь? Организуете тайное мировое господство?Это правда, хотя все не до такой степени тайно или секретно, чтобы я не мог вам рассказать. Суть в том, что ведется хороший диалог между разными политическими, финансовыми, медиа- и бизнес-лидерами Америки и Западной Европы. Никакого заговора нет. И это проблема нашего общества. Нет секретного плана. У наших лидеров нет секретного плана, как решить все наши проблемы. Возможно, секретные планы – это и плохо, но гораздо возмутительнее, по-моему, отсутствие плана в принципе. Источник: Getty Images / Bloomberg / David Paul Morris
Repeal, Don’t Reform the IMF!МОСКВА, 31 мар – РИА Новости. Настало время положить конец работе Международного валютного фонда, равно как и остальных инструментов американской политики экономического экспансионизма, уверен американский политик Рон Пол.МВФ, отмечает он, использует деньги американских налогоплательщиков, чтобы поддерживать экономически слабые, "нежизнеспособные", часто значительно коррумпированные правительства. Это, в свою очередь, искажает рынок и не только не приносит пользы самим американцам, но и вредит жителям тех регионов, которым МВФ оказывает свою помощь.Поскольку фонд большую долю финансирования получает из США, совершенно логично, что он адаптирует свои действия к продвижению внешнеполитических целей Вашингтона, пишет политик.Рон Пол подчеркивает, что ни один ответственный финансовый институт не предоставил бы 17- или 40-миллиардный кредит в долларовом эквиваленте заемщику, который с трудом пытается погасить уже существующий многомиллиардный кредит. Однако именно это в прошлом месяце сделал МВФ, выделив новый кредит Украине. С экономической точки зрения эти деньги не помогут Украине выбраться из кризиса, но с политической — они обеспечат продвижение внешнеполитической стратегии США.Политик убежден, что МВФ невозможно реформировать за счет изменения формы распределения капитала, потому что его источники финансирования – это частные компании, поэтому эту структуру нужно просто ликвидировать, как и все остальные международные институты, продвигающие американскую политику экономического экспансионизма и управляющие мировой экономикой.Как это водится у РИА, переведена только часть, поэтому некоторые моменты , упущенные РИА, переведу.Будет странно, если,читая Рона Пола, вы не увидите про ФРС и его аудит.МВФ не является единственной организацией, которая управляет мировой экономикой.Нам всем известно, в последние годы появился таинственный покупатель американских трежерис , который именуется "Бельгией", названный так потому,что операции идут через Бельгию. Особенность покупателя, именуемого "Бельгией" заключается в том,что через него осуществляются большие объемы продаж трежерис, если вдруг иностранное государство предпочитает их продать. Крупные объемы покупателя "Бельгия" появились в течении нескольких месяцев после введения ФРС программы количественного смягчения. Основные подозрения на фиктивность этих операций связаны с тем,что , несмотря на то,что продажи трежерис не согласованы с Правительством, они легко находят свой сбыт и , единственное, чем это можно объяснить , так это тем,что именно ФРС занимается скупкой гособлигаций. Проводимый ограниченный аудит ФРС в период финансового кризиса привел к тому,что ФРС активно вмешивается глобальные рынки.Для чего федеральное Правительство заключает соглашения с иностранными правительствами? Оно работает,чтобы выручить Грецию и ЕС? Или оно предпочитает действовать тайно, помогая американской внешней политике,финансируя нынешних союзников , по примеру американского союзника 80-х Саддама Хуссейна? Отсутствие прозрачности деловых отношений федерального правительства с зарубежными центральными банками и иностранными правительствами является еще одной причиной,почему Конгресс должен утвердить законопроект об аудите.Собирая деньги от американских налогоплательщиков,чтобы поддержать экономически слабые и коррумпированные правительства, МВФ, (аналогично ФРС), искажает рынок, обогащает коррумпированные правительства , тем самым неся вред как американским налогоплательщикам, так и жителям государств, которым МВФ оказывает "помощь".Настало время положить конец МВФ вместе с остальными инструментами американской интервенционистской внешней политики.
Шесть основных центральных банков мира заявили, что сделают соглашения о валютных свопах постоянными как "разумную поддержку ликвидности" на случай будущих глобальных финансовых трудностей. Банк Японии, Федеральная резервная система США, Европейский центральный Банк, Банк Англии и Центральные банки Канады и Швейцарии конвертируют "временные двусторонние своп соглашения" в постоянные договорённости, которые "будет оставаться в силе до дальнейшего уведомления". ... "Мы решили сделать их постоянными, чтобы избежать неопределённости, так как они истекали в феврале следующего года" - заявил Курода на пресс-конференции. "Мы не планируем расширить число своп-соглашений за пределы шести центральных банков". (Рейтер*) До 2011 г. неограниченные свопы между центробанками открывались на срок 7 дней. В декабре 2011 появились трёхмесячные свопы. Тогда ФРС поддержала LTRO-1 - первую эмиссию ЕЦБ в полтриллиона евро (Согласованная эмиссия: бомба!) трёхмесячными свопами на общую сумму в 100 млрд долл. Сложно представить, как упал бы курс, если бы избыточное евро вышло на валютный рынок при неизменном предложении долларовых объёмов. Спасибо ФРС... Поэтому декабрь 2011 года я считаю началом согласованной эмиссии. Смысл неограниченных своп-операций в том, что любые астрономические суммы могут проходить между центробанками, минуя валютный рынок. Поэтому эпоха независимых игроков, способных повлиять на курс одной из резервных валют ЦБ-6, завершена. Более того, завершена эпоха свободно-конвертируемых валют, потому что главным свойством СКВ есть свободное рыночное формирование курса. По сути, эта шестёрка резервных валют являет собой неофициальную глобальную валюту (подробнее: Согласованная эмиссия = глобальная валюта), колебания между составными которой ограничены коридором, о котором центробанки не хотят и не могут сообщить, ибо придётся признать существование сговора в обход правительств и парламентов. Разумеется, негласный коридор не может быть вечным, он подлежит коррекции время от времени - вероятно, с периодичностью полгода-год. Если бы внутри ЦБ-6 не было установленных коридоров, то начался бы хаос... Но произошло прогнозируемое - волатильность валют с 2011 года снизилась в разы. Странам БРИКС следовало бы взять пример с ЦБ-6, отбросив бюрократически-непродуктивную идею собственной единой валюты - см. Оперативная программа обороны БРИКС в валютной войне - материал был републикован новостным агрегатором официального сайта МИД РФ. Фраза Куроды, что постоянные неограниченные свопы не выйдут за рамки ЦБ-6, говорит очень много: Китай, несмотря на многочисленные своп-соглашения (все они лимитированы) с другими центробанками, уже не войдёт в согласованную эмиссию с резервными валютами. Хотя некоторые подозрительные предпосылки для этого были. Фракция глобалистов (в том числе МВФ), выступающая за глобальную валюту (ГВ) на базе стран G-20, уступила ещё одну позицию фракции, продвигающей ГВ на базе валют ЦБ-6. В общем, если бы центробанки могли говорить прямо, то сказали бы так: "Печатаем вместе. Обесцениваемся вместе. Понадобится, тонуть будем тоже вместе. Если только нам не помешают маргиналы навроде венгерского Виктора Орбана, американского Рона Пола или французской Мари Ле Пен. _______________ * getlost - спасибо за сообщение.