-Caveat Lector-
..............................................................
Forwarded from the New Paradigms Project [Not Necessarily Endorsed]:
From: James Daugherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LA-AGORA Digest - 19 Oct 1999 to 20 Oct 1999 (#1999-204)
Date: Saturday, October 23, 1999 10:59 AM
>My my, James, what a change. You've moved from your usual name calling and
abuse to something with some substance. [Not very much substance, as we
shall see below, but any improvement is welcome.]
James Responds: I haven't changed. Any name calling was
in response to specific lies on your part. Perhaps you are simply
starting to realize that your over-generalizations about "conspiracy
theorists" are unjustified nonsense.
>You just simply don't seem to be able to read, James. If you will look at
what I said, it was not that the dominate institutions in either Britain or
the U.S. were libertarian but that the modern tradition of liberty [i.e.,
>LIBERTARIANISM] that arose as a REACTION to the FAILED English Revolution.
James Responds: Frankly, no, I don't see that modern libertarianism
is primarily a reaction to the Puritan Revolution. Certainly, support or
toleration for liberty increased after the Puritan Revolution due to the
exhaustion of
civil war. However, was a significant dissident tradition spawned? Or did
the totalitarian-religious-Statist scum on both sides of the Revolution
finally decide that their authoritarian plans for religious and economic
political uniformity were impractical and give-up the worst aspects of their
ugly dreams? Britain's superior environment of individual liberty as
compared to
continental States is more likely due to the English channel as internal
liberty tends to vary inversely with external threat. Feel free to state
your
case with examples if you care to convince me. Maybe I still don't
understand
what you are getting at with regard to the Puritan Revolution....
>I don't think that this is a bit ethnocentric, since if you bother to look
at the French and Russian traditions of liberty you will find that (1) they
were largely inspired by the very roots I point to, rather than having a
domestic origin and (2) they were highly flawed from the outset [see
Hayek's essays on "Liberty: True and False" etc.] The Italian liberty
movement is something else entirely, but no one in the U.S. seems very
familiar with that tradition in any case, and since I live in the U.S. my
silly ethnocentrism [to say nothing of pragmatism] tends to focus on what
>matters here rather than in the remnants of East Prussia.
James Responds: Yes, indeed the 18th Century French advocates of
laissez-faire and
liberty, the physiocrats and others were impressed by the superior state of
liberty in
England after the Glorious Revolution. In fact, they "idealized" British
liberty
far beyond its reality. On the other hand, many of the 18th Century French
free-thinkers were flawed from a libertarian perspective by extremely
socialistic ideas. Feel free to state Hayek's thesis more clearly as I have
not read the essay you mention.
>Let's assume for the moment that there is such a thing as "the government"
[which there isn't], then the result of your observation that it is engaged
>in a "conspiracy against liberty" is, what exactly, James?
James Responds: If there is no such thing as government, then, indeed, it
is a waste of time talking further until that issue is resolve. I am aware
of
the ultra-individualist libertarians who make such claim....I happen to
think
they are deluded. Certainly, the "non-existence" of government needs more
discussion.....I have studed Mr. Mann's similar thesis and find it wanting.
I
think Mr. Mann's website is called "The Free World Order". Are you
referring
to his ideas or something related or different?
>Is the result
that we should swallow just any urban legend that someone comes up with
>about what "the government' is up to now?
James Responds: Why imply something you know I do not claim? Silly!
>Is the implication that since
"the government" is engaged in a "conspiracy against liberty" that we
should be worried about the Pope or the Royal Family taking over and
striping us of whatever liberty we have left. Sorry, James, but this
>evasion doesn't wash.
James Responds: I have never thought or stated any such thing. The
point is that Statism is promoted by a ruling class that benefits from
Statism. This makes Statism especially difficult to defeat. The benefits
of Statism are in reality concentrated in Elite that has become expert
in maintaining Statism. There is a self-sustaining positive feedback loop
between the ruling class and the State. Libertarians need to take this
into account in devising a strategy to weaken and ultimately overthrow
the State.
Regarding the Pope and the Royal Family:
have always pointed out this as a conflict in the ruling class that provides
opportunities for the advocates of liberty, not as something to "worry
about".
It is amazing how you continue to project your own prejudices on me!
>Most libertarians understand [or should understand]
that it is [to use the shorthand expressions that you guys seem to be able
to comprehend] the "nature" of government to be a perpetual enemy of
liberty and to always tend toward the most outrageous acts of tyranny. From
that one can't deduce, however, any of the outlandish nonsense that you and
>your fellow conspiracy buffs daily toss around.
James Responds: Never deduced in any such manner. One must
study the specifics of any particular claims of conspiracy, not just
dismiss it as "outlandish nonsense". If you don't have time to consider
the specific empirical evidence, fine! That is no excuse to accept the
soothing "no conspiracy" propaganda emanating from the Statists. Conspiracy
theories are subversive of the State to the extent they are give credence.
>James Said Before: I just apply praxeology to all human action,
>not just the sterile case that von Mises analyzed. Von Mises and most
other
>economists analyze the case in which force and fraud is outlawed. The
more
>common case is where force and fraud are overtly and covertly
>institutionalized at the behest of a conspiratorial ruling class.
>Where do you get this stuff, James? Have you ever read Mises? Do you have
>any idea what "praxeology" is about?
Yes, of course I have read von Mises. Though I would be happy to be
corrected,
as I recall, von Mises constantly granted to the advocates of Statism that
they
sincerely want prosperity for the masses. Nonsense, the advocates of
Statism
are trying avoid the discipline of the free market so they can exploit
others with
impunity. Not only is this their intention, but there is plenty of evidence
to show
that they have been successful. Gabriel Kolko's book _Triumph of
Conservatism_
marshalled much of the evidence.
>Sorry, I confused young of spirit [not particularly wise] with young
chronologically. In 1964 I was 15, not yet in college and it would be
another year or two before I'd read most of what Mises had written. Mea
>culpa. Now I suggest you go back and reread it.
>James Responds: Better get back to praxeology. Do you need to identify
>good economic firms vs bad economic firms to study economics?.....you again
>are forgetting or never understood subjective value.
>James, you're not addressing the point again. The point of praxeology and
the rest of technical economics is to describe the propensities for one
sort of action versus other sorts that arise in alternative institutional
settings. The whole "economic calculation" argument, for instance, is not
to say that capitalism is "good" and socialism is "bad," but simply to say
that if socialism does what it says it will do that it can't then carry out
certain functions that we more or less take for granted in a market based
>system.
James Responds: von Mises was far too silent in bringing praxeology to bear
upon the important institutional setting of State Capitalism. Socialism
always self-destructs if really tried. State Capitalism is the most
pervasive form of economic organization that has existed for many Centuries
from City States to Nations. In my
value free mode, I am explaining the propensity for State Capitalist human
action throughout history.
As a value centered libertarian, I am looking for possibilities for
undermining
and undoing the State Capitalist nightmare.
>As opposed to this sort of positivist [value neutral] analysis, your whole
approach is normative from the outset. The proposition you seem to start
from is not merely that people have a tendency to form "conspiracies"
[otherwise know as "coalitions" or "clubs" or whatever] to promote their
mutual private and collective goals [probably a true hypothesis for various
reasons] but that such conspiracies are per se bad because they are
conspiracies, and that we should spend our time going about exposing such
>conspiracies.
James Responds: No, I say conspiracies are bad from a libertarian
perspective
only if they marshall State power to establish and sustain themselves.
Libertarian
conspiracies as suggested by Sam Konkin's counter economics would be great.
>Further, James, instead of concentrating on a marshalling of
evidence for and against an alleged act of a given conspiracy the
"reasoning" usually seems to go something like this: (1) there is what
appears to be a flu epidemic internationally, but this epidemic is atypical
in certain respects [it is, for instance, more severe than most and the
particular virus seems to be reoccurrent over a long period of time]; (2)
these results might also be consistent with repeated spraying of toxins on
the populations experiencing the epidemic; (3) certain persons here and
there have reported black helicopters spraying something; (4) we know that
the U.S. and other governments have, at various times, subjected groups of
people to infections or toxins, with or without their knowledge and
consent, to test out these "techniques"; (5) THEREFORE, the recent flu
epidemic is not a flu epidemic at all, but the U.S. and Britain [led no
doubt by the Pope and Queen] are systematically spraying their populations
>with bacterial agents or toxins that are creating flu like symptoms.
>Sorry, James, but the above sort of argument just doesn't cut mustard,
either from the standpoint of building a credible case of a certain
activity or as an implication of "praxeology" or the observation that
"governments are engaged in a conspiracy against liberty. It is simply a
jumble of wild conjectures hooked together with rumor and innuendo. And,
>frankly, I've never seen you do anything but the above sort of "analysis".
James Responds: Perhaps you just don't read anything I have written.
The stuff you are complaining about is stuff that I forward for discussion
and information from other sources.
When I post a conspiracy hypothesis such as "virus spraying" it is for
discussion and information only. The reasoning process you criticise
above is valid for hypothesis formation only. It certainly does not provide
a useful level of confidence.
This is "thinking out loud" on the
internet. I am interested in marshalling evidence for and against the
various conspiracy theories floated by others. Some theories are riddled
with internal contradictions. Others seem plausible given the extemity
of the National Security Dictatorship that has seized the commanding
heights the Fed Govt since WWII. Only empirical evidence can increase
or decrease confidence one way or the other. As I have repeatedly said,
far too many conspiracy theorists jump to "believing" their hypotheses.
This has something to do with addiction to the pleasurable "ah ha" response.
Rather than just ridiculing conspiracy theories per se, you might
consider
contributing more specific arguments for or against the various conspiracy
hypotheses floated. If you don't have time, fine.
>[Neither do I see that you have ever made this distinction before, but
>let's presume otherwise.] So, o.k., let's take your positivist
>interpretation for a minute and ask what exactly conspiracy theory does for
>us. Does it, perhaps, tell us something that is of interest to someone
>other than the academic historian [who wants to know who did what] or the
>public prosecutor [who wants to know who to have arrested and prosecuted]?
James Responds: Certainly, prosecutors or better, private organizations,
could take a conspiracy hypothesis, prove it with detailed research, expose
it to the public and make that particular conspiracy to increase Statism
impractical. When the rationalizations for
Statism are shown to be the result on conspiratorial plotting, that part of
Statism might well be weakened or eliminated.
James Said Before: The point of conspiracy theory is that elites achieve
their
>quasi-monopolistic positions by building and manipulating a powerful State
>that provides the special privileges that keep them in power and rich, ie.
>they enlist to State to prevent the competion that would othewise create a
>truly pluralistic, libertarian tending society. They do this by Statist
>propaganda campaigns to convince the people that an all powerful State will
>serve the people while knowing that the State always serves the elite at
the
>expense of the people.
Well, if this is the point, they why the obsession with the Queen [who is
entirely powerless to do anything with the British state or any other] and
the Pope [who has power only over the Vatican].
James Responds: You are empirically wrong about the Queen and the Pope. We
just discussed how the Pope's influence extended outside the Vatican to
oppose Soviet Imperialism in Poland. The Pope has no influence on the
Catholic Church in the USA and the World outside the Vatican?...the extent
of the Pope and the Queen's influence is debatable, but to say there is no
influence or power is silly. As a Billionaire with intimate connections
with the British State and British Intelligence, the Queen certainly has the
potential to influence many things. A "representative assembly" like
Parliament is a sitting duck for money and Patronage.
>If you are looking for
those "elites [who] achieve their quasi-monopolistic positions by building
and manipulating a powerful State" these choices would seem to be at the
bottom of the list. That they are at the top of this list tells us what
>about your credibility, James?
James Responds: Craig, you are simply transmitting common presuppositions
you have accepted. Feel free to offer substantial arguments if you have
any. You should be more skeptical of ruling assumptions.
James Responds: The power of the British Oligarchy is no longer what it
>was, but it remains an extremely powerful bloc and one of the more
>disciplined economic/intellectual power blocs. Last time I checked,
Britain
>is still the largest foreign investor in America. No accident that most of
>the anti-Clinton propaganda emanated out of Britain and Rupert Murdoch.
>I see. Now criticisms of Clinton are a Royal Family conspiracy.
Interesting. Everytime I think that you've come up with the ultimate in
>weird hypotheses you top your previous efforts.
James Responds: Gee how brilliant you are, Craig! Just put the word
"weird" in front of hypothesis....THAT SETTLES IT, I SUPPOSE!?
>James Said Before: Watergate was the British Anglophile reaction to the
Nixon-Rockefeller >opening to China which infringed on Britain's traditional
entree to China
>via Hong Kong. This time around, the Rockefeller stooge (Clinton) is much
>better insulated from Brit/Anglophile attacks. Apparently, the Rockefeller
>forces effectively control the major media (except for Rupert Murdoch's
Fox)
>to thwart the Brit/Mellon Scaife campaign.
>Let's assume that all of this is true, James. From this important knowledge
what can we deduce [be specific] about what should be done and how we
should react differently than we might otherwise? Is Clinton to be
supported because the Royals are after him? Is he any less despicable as a
President or a human being? How about Nixon? What exactly is the lesson to
>be learned, James?
James Responds: We cannot always find a way to use geopolitical knowledge
for libertarian stategy...maybe some things are just of academic interest.
>That is nice, but we were talking about the Royal Family. Now you've
slipped over into talking about the British Empire. Can you tell the
>difference?
James Responds: Yes, I think the Royal Family dominated the British Empire.
Surprising hypothesis I am sure to those who actually believe in the myths
of Parliament and representative government.
> James Said Before: Its greatest
>geographical extent between the Wars when the whole Middle East fell to it.
>Only World War II allowed the Rockefeller/US Empire to take precedence.
>The Queen, a multi-Billionaire, meets with the leaders of the City
regularly
>to co-ordinate the control of Parliament via Patronage and bribery just as
>William of Orange used his financiers after the Glorious Revolution to
>control Parliament in the interest of supporting his wars against Lous XIV
>in the interests of the Netherlands.
>What utter nonsense. The Queen controls Parliament through use of her vast
billions and extensive power over the City of London. Oh my, God, what a
>moron.
James Responds: Once again, you simply transmit popular presuppositions
uncritically and throw in silly name calling. You need to look at that part
of your mind programmed to respond with ridicule. That part of your brain
may be infected with Statist Memes.
***********************************
James Daugherty, Internet Postmaster for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,
Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources.
To Discuss Ideas:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://msen.com/~lloyd/
For Ordering Info & Free Catalog:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://a-albionic.com/
**FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <http://a-albionic.com/search.html> **
Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html>
***********************************
************************************* Forwarded for info and discussion from the
New Paradigms Discussion List,
not necessarily endorsed by:
***********************************
Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,
Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources.
To Discuss Ideas:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://msen.com/~lloyd/
For Ordering Info & Free Catalog:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://a-albionic.com/formaddress.html
For Discussion List:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
text in body: subscribe prj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
**FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> **
Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html>
Every Diet Has Failed! What Can I do?
Click Below to "Ask Dr. Kathleen"!
http://www.radiantdiet.com/cgi-bin/slim/deliver.cgi?ask-1364
***********************************
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
