Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Jack Hunter: When You See the Bilderberg's Meet. Look the Other Way

Jack Hunter, who has been launching a curious defense  of Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney, is now out with a piece telling libertarians to stop discussing the Bilderberg meetings:
When I hear someone mention "Bilderberg" these days, any adult conversation I'd planned on having with them is over. This is not to say that the Bilderberg Group itself is not curious. It is to say that such language is politically toxic. It is to say that mentioning them accomplishes nothing and hurts plenty. It is to ignore the problems that are happening in public all the time. Our debt, loss of liberty, perpetual war, and the emerging police state — these things should be discussed and debated on their own merits without Bilderberg ever being mentioned. 
Most in the constitutional conservative or libertarian movements do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, just like most conventional right-wingers don't subscribe to Birtherism, but the small minority who do continue to embarrass and hinder everyone's efforts. Playing into our enemies' worst stereotypes is not an asset. 
The Left is hell-bent on redistributing wealth. The neoconservatives are hell-bent on redistributing wealth overseas, and they really don't mind it so much at home either. Those of us who oppose these two have our work cut out for us. There is no need to remove ourselves from the national conversation by having insular conversations that no one else cares about, that make us look crazy, or that turn inroads into permanent roadblocks. Conspiracy theories can be fun to talk about, but for political movements, they can also be fatal.
Yup, in Jack's world a good little libertarian should vote for Romney and ignore the elitist meetings. If the banksters of the early 20th century held a meeting on Jekyll Island , where they plotted the formation of the Federal Reserve,  it would be horrifying to expose such. Instead, in Jack's world, early 20th century  libertarians should have stopped "having insular conversations" about the Jekyll Island meeting and simply joined in "the national conversation," which if I recall resulted in the evil statist Woodrow Wilson getting elected. 

39 comments:

  1. Yes, we all know: "Adult = one who compromises." This is the great fallacy of our time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wondering out loud is forbidden with them. Honest questions and concerns are mocked. Do we want a society where "the nail that sticks out gets hammered" by the threat of being ostracized or ridiculed?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Correct, Bob. Hunter is basically trying to convince people that the symptoms are the cause of the disease.


    And lest we not forget, Mr. Libertarian, Murray Rothbard, was a devotee of so-called "conspiracy theories." As an advocate of revisionist history and a praxaeologist, Rothbard's idea was that you could NOT be one. "Look who benefits" was his mantra in historical and political analysis.

    The guard is changing. As Ron Paul retreats into his much deserved retirement, we're starting to see the true colors of all of these hangers on he's unfortunately amassed over the years.

    I'm smelling "go along to get along" and it stinks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just wait, Hunter will out with a piece that shows how Rothbard really was for libertarians to not engage in conspiracy theories!

      Delete
    2. You got that right. Ron Paul has good ideas, but time and again he's hired infiltrators throughout his organization.

      Delete
  4. I suppose Mr. Wenzel was cheering Jesse Ventura's "9/11 was an inside job, building 7, controlled demolition" speech at the Ron Paul shadow convention in 2008, too. Nothing like some 9/11 "truth" peppered between speeches on the business cycle and just war theory to attract new fans, right?

    And before you accuse me of knocking down a straw man, maybe you could point me to where Hunter ever told anyone to vote for Romney.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you suppose building 7 went down, Trent? And could you point me to where Wenzel was cheering the Jesse speech that you cite.

      Delete
    2. I suppose we should also agree with the scientific consensus that carbon taxes paid to the IMF will improve our weather? We should also not read foreign affairs magazine or check out the CFR website right, sure they are important organizations but it sounds kooky to admit you know the CFR exist.

      Delete
  5. Well Bob, frankly I see so many insane conspiracy theories these days it does look awfully silly. I'm not really a believer in most of these myself. I think it's a little paranoid. I kind of agree with Jack no this one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Right, so we're not allowed to talk about that, but Rand can make a show about how his toilet won't flush properly. That's mainstream.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Did Jack really say that voting for Romney is a good libertarian thing to do?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Austin Peterson was just saying the same thing about the Bilderbergs.

    How does a secretive group of the most powerful and influential people in the world not demand conversation and argument? Did he never read Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy?

    These guys are working to damage the liberty movement and confine our thinking to parameters they want. I'm tired of this BS. I'm gonna think and talk about whatever I want to whomever I want. I didn't wake up from a 30 year stupor just to be told what I can think again.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm barely into my 40s, but I think in my lifetime I've read this same column approximately 10,000 times. They never fail to infuriate me because they reveal the author as either a shill or a chickenshit (or a shilling chickenshit).

    This paint-by-numbers column -- let's call it No. 15 -- always starts out with, "Gee, it's a shame we have an intellectual climate in which such-and-such can't be discussed because I think those discussing it do kind of have a point..." Then the shilling chickenshit spends the next 600 words enforcing the same sclerotic intellectual climate.

    Hey Jack, maybe you're embarrassed by people who have learned to look squarely in the right direction when they're trying to determine why the world is a mess and seemingly getting worse. But believe me, we're more embarrassed by chickenshits who pretend to be interested in the cause of liberty but instead decide to act as Establishment enforcers.

    (And yes, I realize the irony of me posting this anonymously... sue me.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jack Hunter nailed it: "Most in the constitutional conservative or libertarian movements do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, just like most conventional right-wingers don't subscribe to Birtherism, but the small minority who do continue to embarrass and hinder everyone's efforts. Playing into our enemies' worst stereotypes is not an asset."

    I think he was being polite. When people see how crazy Rockwell and his crowd are, the "liberty movement" is done. Rockwell is probably the reason that some of the "mainstream" libertarian organizations have shunned Ron Paul; they know how cultish some of the people around Ron Paul are.

    I myself am a staunch libertarian, but I have figured out just how loony this crowd is. Vote Johnson.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The liberty movement is alive and well partly because of people like Rockwell. Rockwell was Paul's chief of staff at one point. Paul's ties to Rockwell have always been known. Ad hominem attacks against people in the liberty movement is detrimental to it. At least back up your attacks with facts or supported opinions at least.

      Delete
    2. In the interest of decency and my good manners and the fact that children may read my comment, I must say that you are suffused with excrement.

      Delete
    3. Go make me a sandwich, Dondero.

      Delete
    4. "I myself am a staunch libertarian, but I have figured out just how loony this crowd is. Vote Johnson."

      Don't flatter yourself.

      If you think that interview on NPR by Johnson proves he is a staunch libertarian, then you either don't know the meaning of the word "staunch" or of the word "libertarian".

      You're a wanna-be without the slightest clue how to argue for liberty without coming across as a hypocrite, just like Johnson once he has to rationally explain why he stops at the legalization of marijuana. Apparently, you "staunch" libertarians still believe the state owns your body once you want to put something in it that is not on the Gary Johnson list of approved substances.

      I'm sure you so-called "staunch" libertarians have a good explanation for all this:
      http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-gary-johnsons-strange-foreign-policy/

      Libertarian my ass.

      Delete
    5. Please ready: For a New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard. You will have a better understanding of what Libertarianism actually is. Additionally, you will grasp why one who says they are anti-Rockwell and pro-Johnson is not a real Libertarian but a beltway Libertarian. Which equates to believing in freedom when it helps you but not when it introduces competition to you, thus one who is a beltway Libertarian has no real principled foundation.

      Delete
    6. Anon,

      You are an ignorant ass. Lew Rockwell is one of the most lucid and cogent thinkers in society. Period.

      Is it not possible that some of the "mainstream" libertarian organizations have shunned Ron Paul because the people who comprise those groups are ignorant asses as well?

      I believe it is.

      Delete
  11. To me it's usually a sign that someone is politically awake and paying attention.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Austin Petersen, associate producer of Freedom Watch apparently gave a speech on the same topic at porcfest:

    http://www.examiner.com/article/liberty-champion-petersen-says-conspiracy-theories-hurt-movement

    I think these guys have been spending too much time around professional 'beltway' media/political-operatives.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Is this video of John Anderson, Walter Cronkite and Hillary real or was it altered? It looks real to me.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaS6bLQixkM

    If this stuff is true, why shouldn't we talk about it? We were warned for years to not talk about the Fed or about non-intervention or about laws against private discrimination. Now that we have spoken out, the opposition has wilted and is avoiding us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Freakin' interesting link.

      As dat book says:
      "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

      By their words as well.

      Delete
  14. Every state *is* a conspiracy. The fact that there are too many silly conspiracy theories doesn't mean there are no real conspiracies. Nowadays calling somebody "conspiracy theorist" is not different from calling somebody a racist - nothing more than a smear, a common tactic by a demagogue to shut down a debate he feels he is losing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jack Hunter and LZ Granderson are on the same page!

    Look how the subverted "right" and "left" meet at the same spot: "Quit asking so many pesky questions."

    ReplyDelete
  16. I set Jack up with a 2 bit local radio host in my market for a pre-primary vote interview try to bolster Paul this cycle...he ended up getting slaughtered on air by a random call in.

    Jack's got some great articles, solo stuff on youtube, and other contributions-but I think he's been tainted by others within Paul's campaign that think they'll make more progress by being "sneaky" libertarians instead of a brutally honest.

    I know when I first saw Paul back in 06 during an early primary debate his speaking truth to power shocked me, and I inherently knew everything he was saying was true but went on to back it up myself by reading, reading, and more reading.

    My belief is that the hate generated within the GOP towards Paul is that of "veritas odium parit". It is the proverbial snowball rolling down hill and the GOP knows it....

    I think the campaign loss has shaken Jack and like most of us he wants results sooner rather than later...the only difference being that Jack thinks that will happen by avoiding difficult topics. I disagree, paradigm shifts don't come about quickly or easily.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bilderberg doesn't need to be brought up because it's irrelevant. The dimwits (Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura, for instance) who bring up Bilderberg, water fluoridation, 9/11 conspiracies, one world government, etc lower the quality of the debate.

    These loon conspiracy barkers that latch onto the libertarian cause shut people out to listening to free market and Austrian ideas. I know if my first exposure came from these drooling mongoloids, I would be less receptive to hearing libertarian ideas in the future.

    Its fine to have an open debate. But virtually all of these conspiracies are easily disproven and wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please, prove the goal of at least two people attempting to establish a one-world government while acting in concert wrong if it's so easy.

      When I see posts like this, all I see is "Government or media would never portray anything except as the honest truth, to suggest otherwise is to expose oneself as a drooling mongoloid."

      Delete
    2. Ummm...you should read Rothbard's article on the collusion of ALCOA and government to fluoridate water in certain areas. So many of these things are nearly out in the open for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. You just would rather not know, like most people. You don't believe in a plan for world government? Look up Jean Monnet. Study the League of Nations. Go on Youtube and watch G. Edward Griffin's interview with the late Norman Dodd. Read the 1954 congressional report on tax-exempt foundations (available at americandeception.com). You don't have to spend your life researching this stuff, but you should know something about them. You should know they are true, whether you believe it or not. So much of science-fiction has become real, and you don't believe in power-hungry human beings?

      Delete
  18. Who cares what Jack Hunter says? I believe his basic premise is shaky. I believe his position could be fairly restated to read, "One should not be so subversive as to not allow their life to continue to be politicized."

    ReplyDelete
  19. Who cares what Jack Hunter says? I believe his basic premise is shaky. I believe his position could be fairly restated to read, "One should not be so subversive as to not allow their life to continue to be politicized."

    ReplyDelete
  20. Was The Iraq war a conspiracy? Who the hell gained anything...King Hal, Lockheed, or lets not forget the biggest trough feeder of them all, the pentagon itself. To say conspiracy theories shouldn't talked about is kind of silly. They really do turn out to be true often and yes there are some crazy ones out there. As so many have pointed out Rothbard had no problems with this question. "I am not concerned with conspiracy theories only conspiracy facts."

    Follow the money! And think about this; anyone sick enough to create and sustain an economic system such as the current fascist model where the banksters are in control has the complete lack of a moral compass to do just about anything. Lets start a war based on lies or fabricated event (gulf of tonkin)and in the process kill thousands of our own people and millions of innocent foreign civilians. But hey don't bring up any conspiracy theories because they are too crazy.

    Don't talk about that group of rich folk that meet in secret with Kissinger because...well you are just not supposed to talk about it. Question Authority? Nope just obey! Yea the people in power start horrific wars for no rhyme or reason, but that's OK they would never be in cahoots to create a new world order or global government. Come on they got some morals!

    ReplyDelete
  21. So, even if a handful of Arabs were solely responsible for the 9/11 events, it's still a conspiracy by definition. Is anybody really denying 9/11 was a conspiracy? Same with the state; it's a giant conspiracy. The UN is a conspiracy by definition. Whenever people act together to achieve an end, they conspire, by definition. The debate seems to be about whether or not it's EVER acceptable to question the official government/media corporatist narrative of events. That's what people mean by "conspiracy theorist," and only that.

    Sounds far more stupid to me to adopt the position that the corporatist establishment would NEVER push a narrative that is not aligned to the truth. That is what people mean when they say they don't buy "conspiracy theories."

    ReplyDelete
  22. Perhaps we should not endeavor to argue conspiracy theory, but rather to debate plausible truths as to the existence of the vilest shadow-system of totalitarian rule spawned from the evolution of corrupt political systems, from which an array of unintended consequences can organically manifest.

    Empirical and unequivocal truths, impartial, pure, incorruptible and absolute in nature and substance, must effectually beyond all reasonable doubt, prove the existence of such structures be they conspiratorial or simply another symptom of unintended dysfunction.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm with Jack on this one. The people who keep harping on about the bilderbergers controlling the world will then go on to cite Webster fucking Tarpley and his bullshit on austrian and free-market economics. (If you're not aware of Tarpleys insane claims regarding AE and his approach to economics in general, then count yourself lucky. Some idiot who's never read a single book by mises or rothbard will soon be along to tell you all about them based on Tarpleys "research".)

    ReplyDelete
  24. There are plenty of public figures who stated that we have a "shadow" government. Off the top of my head, Woodrow Wilson, Louis Brandeis, and Felix Frankfurter are just a few of many. Anyone who denies it should go back to watching cartoons. It's true that we really don't need to investigate most conspiracies, but we sure need to bolster up common sense. If people had balls and common sense, we'd being using gold money right now.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Not surprisingly, Rothbard was brave on the whole topic:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard170.html

    ReplyDelete