Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Lew Rockwell: Obama is the Choice of the Oligrachs

Lew Rockwell appeared last night on and told host Alex Jones that the re-election of President Obama meant that the oligarchs have faith that Obama will be an excellent front for them.

Big pharma and the military industrial complex will do well, he said. Obama will take his orders.

He pointed out that every new regulation that will come about will result in someone making money off of it.

Rockwell went on to discuss the financial problems that exist on a global scale. He warned that the consequences might be horrific, not only in the United States but also in Europe, including in Spain and France. He said we are in a lull before the storm and that the next phase of the crisis will make 2008 look like a picnic. And warned about the possibility of civil unrest.

He said that current day leaders are not only power hungry but must have a crazy gene. He said that normal people don't have such a desire to rule, and that the leaders are different and insane.

Change might come because of the younger generation. He was optimistic about them and pointed out that it is always a minority that is responsible for major social change.


  1. >Change might come because of the younger generation. He was optimistic about them

    I'm optimistic about the young people that supported the economic ideas of Ron Paul.

    However, if you look at the voting numbers from 11/06, Obama and many other statists received support from young voters, in particular young women. They have been trained in statist K-12 and Lower Ed holding tanks that collectivism, statism, govt. is in their interest. They believe this, and any politician selling such now wins.

    The reality is we are headed for a big crash, and only then will 'school'(the school they never had) -- be in session.

    So no Lew Rockwell, on the whole we in fact have a younger generation of useful Dupes.

    1. Well, let's just have Anonymous @ 11:22 tell us "The reality" of what a social, political, and financial crash will look like. Whew! If it wasn't for your correcting Rockwell, I don't know where we would be.

      Ron Paul and Rockwell speak well of Americans as a form of subtle instruction, to lay the seed of peace. Interesting. Peace. Why talk peace? Why not talk about how things are really going to go? Correct me if I am wrong--uh, peace is one of the key principals of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Even if it weren't, peace is a much better prospect than the scenario that you paint. Odd that Lew would portray young people as intelligent, self-preserving individuals as a way to promote peace. But again, I'm just glad that Anonymous @11:22 was here to tell us that the reality is that Hell is around the corner with a race of Orcs marauding the streets of our neighborhoods. What's the answer to that, call in the national guard? Well that would be the logical conclusion now wouldn't it? Wouldn't the presence of a national guard introduce martial law, above and beyond all of the surveillance and drone activity already being unleashed? I can hear your reply Anonymous@1122, "It's just the price of peace?" That sounds an awful lot like the Bush/Giuliani duo.

      Alex Jones calls himself a paleoconservative. That's what he says, but I don't really see that in his radio persona. What I hear is a chaotic, rambling inflammatory rhetoric to garner and sustain a revolutionary-minded audience. He's all over the map with little organized thought. Maybe conservative does nail him.

    2. The problem with your argument is you did not consider that the voting numbers do not include non-voters. There are may who did not vote at all because they understand it is a waste of time. Sure, of those that voted, most still believe in a government-supplied free lunch, but is that indicative of those that did not?

  2. I note this same pattern - young women seem the most vulnerable to the collectivist message. They buy into every male politico promising them care and feeding and join every bandwagon of fear such as the Piltdown Warming hoax, and adopt the hysterical anti-free market hatred of the rich and successful with relish. I love women, but where are the young rebels among them? I know there are a few, but statistically......?

  3. Women join the collectivists because the collectivists have done a far better job than libertarians of emotionalizing the argument between liberty and statism. We must touch their hearts, and we haven't done so. I converted my wife to libertarianism by pointing out how the state victimizes the weak among us the very most. Women dont like war (and I dont mean the sanitized product we are sold on television, but the actual blood and destruction) and that is a good place to start. Show them a picture of a dead child, explain how the state makes this happen. Explain the violent roots of the state. Women will come arround. The libertarian movement has failed to demonstrate the beauty, love, kindness, and joy of liberty. When we do, we will get the girls :)

  4. That's because the prime desire of women is security whereas for men it is freedom. That simply implies that women are more likely to vote for collectivism. This is the horror of centralized power, democracy and of the situation of having a government that doles out spoils. Remember what Susan B. Anthony said to Eugene V. Debs, the socialist that ran for President - "Give us the vote and we'll give you socialism," and Debs replied, "Give us socialism and we'll give you the vote."

    1. See that's why I think there's a need for a libertarian men's movement. It's time for libertarian men to get their head out of the sand and start being honest about what feminism, a phenomenon of statism, has done to women and how it's affected men. Start tackling issues like no-fault divorce, which is really automatic fault for men, father's rights, fighting for men who are falsely accused of domestic violence and rape, etc. There's already a 'men's rights movement' but most of it's members are leftists, which is strange as feminism is a left wing movement in itself. But that's how pervasive statism has become. So we need to put our own take on it.

    2. The movement is there. I was in the MRM circles for some time. It was part of my awakening delving into the realm of anti-feminism. I moved on because it is but one piece of a much larger problem. When I started seeing the Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford Foundations' funding going to so many of the virulent hate groups posing as feminists, I at once realized that this was a Power Elite funded movement to destroy the relationship between men and women (divide and conquer) and ultimately to destroy the family, the greatest pillar of a free civilization. And as many on this blog already know, the power elite and its ideological ancestors like Adam Weishaupt and Karl Marx despised the traditional, bourgeois family. In order to destroy a society and control it, destroying the family has always been a primary goal for them, aside from eliminating national borders (sovereignty), and destroying religion (mainly Christianity).

      And obviously, being anti-feminist, is not being anti-woman as the militant femi-fascists would like for you to believe. I know that feminism is perhaps one of the worst things to happen to American women, more so than to American men. It is nothing more than a hate movement based in phony, hyperbolized victimization thinly veiled as a movement for equality (doesn't that description sound eerily similar to all other Marxian-influenced minority "movements"?). I'm all for equality under the law, nothing more, nothing less.

      The only solution is what anarcho-capitalists advocate, to move to a completely voluntaryist, de-centralized state of multiple independent polities and to eliminate any and all wealth redistribution. Income taxes are obviously a form of slavery and only encourages the parasites to keep sucking off of us.

  5. To AnonymousNovember 7, 2012 12:38 PM

    Amanda Billyrock and Julie Borowski - a start.