Saturday, 7 November 2015


Rand Paul says: "I'm proud to support Israel, America's longtime friend and ally in the Middle East. Israeli cafés and buses are bombed, towns are victimized by hundreds of rockets, and its citizens are attacked by Palestinian terrorists."

Famous Libertarians include: Rand Paul, Angelina Jolie, Paul Ryan, Milton Friedman, Alex Jones and the Koch brothers.

"Because libertarians score low on empathy but high on systemizing tests, some researchers speculate that they have a 'greater susceptibility to autism'."

All about libertarians: Group’s mystique increases as profile is raised.

The Libertarian Koch brothers.

Libertarianism includes a range of political philosophies.

American Libertarians tend to favour the the right to carry guns and freedom of ownership.

They tend to be opposed to the provision of welfare services by the state.

American Neo-libertarians support an interventionist foreign policy and militarism.

Left-Libertarians believe that it is not legitimate for someone to claim private ownership of resources to the detriment of others.

The first person to describe himself as a libertarian [184] was the anarchist communist philosopher Joseph Déjacque.

What Do the Libertarian Koch Brothers Want?

"The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country."

Paul Ryan, who admires atheist Jewess, Alisa Rosenbaum, also known as Ayn Rand. THE REAL PAUL RYAN?.

According to Mark Ames:

1. In the USA, Libertarianism can be seen a phony ideology to promote a corporate agenda

"The libertarian movement's founding father" Milton Friedman has been linked to illegal lobbying activities and think-tanks which were fronts for business lobbyists.

2. "What the Buchanan Committee discovered was that ... a lobbying outfit which is today credited by libertarians as the movement’s first think-tank - the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) - was itself a big business PR project backed by the largest corporations and lobbying fronts in the country."

A list of FEE's original donors includes: GM, Chrysler and Ford; Gulf Oil, Standard Oil, and Sun Oil; US Steel, National Steel, Republic Steel; Sears; Monsanto and DuPont; General Electric, Merrill Lynch and Eli Lilly.

3. The FEE's board included the future founder of the John Birch Society, Robert Welch; the most powerful figure in the Mormon church at that time, J Reuben Clark, 'a frothing racist'; and United Fruit president Herb Cornuelle.

4. The purpose of the FEE - and libertarianism, as it was originally created - "was to supplement big business lobbying with a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-economics rationale to back up its policy and legislative attacks on labor and government regulations".

Continued here: The True History of Libertarianism in America.

Prison Planet Editor Paul Joseph Watson is a Libertarian.
Paul Joseph Watson says that, in the Charlie Hebdo attack, the shooting of the policeman in the street was real. HOW MUCH DO AMERICANS KNOW ABOUT KOK?

So, the top American Libertarians seem to be secretly in favour of the Robber Barons and seem to be opposed to ordinary Americans (whether poor, Black, gay or whatever).

According to the top American Libertarians:

Capitalists are noble Nietzchean heroes.

Worker activism is evil

The poor are pampered good-for-nothings

What's wrong with libertarianism.

Ayn Rand

"Libertarianism's leading 20th-century theorist was the novelist Ayn Rand."

Why libertarianism is closer to Stalinism than you think.

Ayn Rand's first love and mentor was a sadistic serial killer who dismembered little girls.

ATLAS SHRIEKED: Ayn Rand's First Love and Mentor.

She supported Israel in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, describing the israelis as "civilized men fighting savages".[74]

Mother Jones remarked that "Rand's particular genius has always been her ability to turn upside down traditional hierarchies and recast the wealthy, the talented, and the powerful as the oppressed".[167]

The Nation alleged similarities between Rand's ideas and fascism.[174]



  1. The new US Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, has been described as a devout Christian and his favorite book is Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness."


    1. This might help:

      "Libertarianism" at least in the USA was an attempt to counter the misuse of the word "Liberal" by statist socialists.

      In effect, it's not really a "movement" at all, just a counterattack.

      Milton Friedman was a Republican, and the Koch Brothers would call themselves anything to make a dishonest buck.

      Ayn Rand seems more to have been a wild card pushing the Jewish agenda than anyone knew while she was alive. Canadian author Jeff Walker, in a book called "The Ayn Rand Cult", notes that even her name is derived from Hebrew despite a pop myth to the contrary. "Ayn" is short for "Aiyan" ("bright eyes") her nickname as a kid. ""Rand" was a unit of gold currency when she was young, the S. African unit of money. Walker notes that even "John Galt" becomes obvious when you say it out loud: "Galt" is how you pronounce "GOLD" with a Yiddish inflection.

      Totally revealing book, not only about that but about much else. How ruthless and totalitarian her cult was will come as a shock to anyone who thinks she valued freedom of conscience.

  2. This Ted video below goes very nicely with this Aangirfan post and the Jamie Johnson film. This is a banned Ted talk by Nick Honauer who is most certainly one of the one percent, as he say's. He exposes the fallacy, or propaganda, of the Trickle Down theory. He fears that if things carry on going as they are there will be a massive backlash, and besides, if ordinary people don't earn enough money, there won't be enough customers for the companies that rich people own.

    Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs"

    Via Business Insider: "As the war over income inequality wages on, super-rich Seattle entrepreneur Nick Hanauer has been raising the hackles of his fellow 1-percenters, espousing the contrarian argument that rich people don't actually create jobs. The position is controversial — so much so that TED is refusing to post a talk that Hanauer gave on the subject. National Journal reports today that TED officials decided not to put Hanauer's March 1 speech up online after deeming his remarks "too politically controversial" for the site...".

  3. Libertarianism and Socialism are the two sides of a false dichotomy of organisational 'options' offered to the populace by the Establishment. Neither theory makes any significant criticism of the financial system as a system, although reform in this area (via, for example, the systematically suppressed and misrepresented concepts of Social Credit) are essential to the future well-being of people living in society.


  5. I’m not the most strident Libby but going all a-political after being anarchy, I was influenced by those who shook me up. Undoubtedly the pioneers predominant social aspiration is libertarian. Earnest Hancock was an early transitional voice into the light, about the-dark-dark NWO. I came interested in the politics, came out turned with upside-down analysis of the powers and their purposes.

    Not such a punchy piece but at least it gets the cat out the bag. A similar hit could be constructed about Socialism - the list to malign a cinch. Redefining labels is easy and Aangirfan, you know you're being cheeky, but hey - it's one of your strong suits, the comments a guarantee contrast is potentially alive.

    Famous Libertarians include; one full-on, two moderates (if at all) and two slammed by the first one for being far, far, from goodies. As for Milton, his stance, an ongoing debate.

    I cried listening to Tom Woods and Judge Napolitano’s introduction to Ron Paul’s 80th Birthday speech - I suppose that makes me a believer.

    Guns, the dole and overseas warring? Well of course the first, the second is much misunderstood, the third a no, no, no... (I suppose there might be the wildest exceptions). I think it helps to view libertarian from an anarchist perspective as a base-line. If your hope is in a not-corrupt but biggish state and Marx world order, then it's all an individualistic deception and futile cause. One says the Govt will co-opt, the other, Coperates. Both are dangers from an idealistic perspective, what's least likely?

    Of course Anarcho-syndicalism and the like are the opposite, not Libertarians, to the only likely pushed alternative and Socialist appeal. But Anarchists have a kind of underground anti-Capitalist cred and, at least in the UK and US, are the establishment's named bane. They're not growing here or there but in the US, Libertarians are. Here in the UK we have a right-asleep nationalism. All God save the Queen with the vestiges of hell-fire Jesus. Muslims ramped up as the enemy. Bill Hicks ‘puppet joke’ says it all, talking of which...

    Mark Ames’s assertion is, it’s all about ‘promoting a corporate agenda’, well surely all but full-on Commieville at some level does. Just say it? “State not so much private enterprise” - or what’s the vision? But that’s the thing. The main problem with all these -isms is that it might discourage collaboration and measured assessment of ‘those others’ achievements?

    Finalisin’: Ayn Rand is the one always brought out to wind-up. The problems with her stance, for so many libers and libertarian-ish-ers, is she manages to wrap a tiddle of sense in heap of terrible ethics and outcomes.

    And Paul W? Well he's obviously a reptile, look you can see, plus he thinks something we don't about a not-likely dead cop? That's Libertarians for ya...


    1. 'The happy warrior of human freedom'.
      I cry some more.

  6. Poisoned Agriculture: Depopulation and Human Extinction

    There is a global depopulation agenda. The plan is to remove the ‘undesirables’, ‘the poor’ and others deemed to be ‘unworthy’ and a drain on finite resources. However, according to Rosemary Mason, the plan isn’t going to work because an anthropogenic mass extinction is already underway that will affect all life on the planet and both rich and poor alike. Humans will struggle to survive the phenomenon.

  7. Thanks Mark, saved me having to rant on a Saturday.

    The conflation of libertarian principles with various celebrities, rich people, and politcal whores is not worthy, Aang. A similar hit list could of course be constructed for any politcal or social doctrine/theory/systerm.

    Hope the hoplophobia isn't going to drive (too much) the content !

  8. Do you know, Aangirfan, I read the first sentence in the link, 'All about libertarians: Group’s mystique increases as profile is raised', and laughed my head off. It's so true.

    'If you've ever observed a group of libertarians at a bar — perhaps discussing objectivism, the Second Amendment, or marijuana, all with reverence — then you know that they are a species of political being unlike the rest of us.'

  9. George Kennedy Young and Airey Neave set up the group 'Tory Action.'

  10. A good send up of Stefan Molyneux .

    Chad Fisher impersonates Molyneux and exposes him in the process.

  11. YouTube video, The Stefan Molyneux Cult.

    Introduction to My Cult Experience in Freedomain RadioPublished on 20 Aug 2014

    Here I share a little bit about my own cult experience, discuss my perspective on Freedomain Radio, Stefan Molyneux, and the recent action he has taken to silence his critics.

  12. This is interesting: YouTube video: How cult leaders hook people in.

    Cult Wars: Teal Swan VS Stefan Molyneux

    Published on 28 Sep 2015

    Teal and Stefan have both been accused of running cults and not just by outside observers but by people who have defected from their “inner circles”.

  13. I enjoy this blog, but you are deeply confused about what Libertarians are. The term seems to have been hijacked and is now (bizarrely) somehow associated with fascists and statists.

    1. No, it started out that way, and without funding from the mega rich no one would know anything about it. But now it has taken on a life on its own and Grahame Greene and Storm Clouds Gathering are seriously anti the ruling elite. Except libertarianism will leave the ruling elite still in charge, this is why they invented it.

      The big mistake libertarians make is believing that by doing away with government the wars and police stare will come to an end, but the ruling elite are the government. The ruling class and the government are the same thing, and they have always been the same thing. Even the Roman Emperors were both the ruling class and the government at the same time. The European Kings were both the government and the ruling class, and they brought in very harsh laws. The ruling class have always taxed ordinary people, put them in prison, and started wars.

      When there are no government there will be no laws against monopolies and the ruling elite will get to own everything and then they will just whack the prices up on, like on the toll roads, and water bills, etc., and they will charge as much as they can get away with. They will use this money to pay for their private armies and will carry on starting wars just as they have always done, except there wouldn't be any democracy that could stop them.

      An example of freedom and liberty gone wrong:

      A man becomes so incredibly wealthy that gets to own a lot of land and he stops people from walking on it and he uses a private army to guard it. On his land is stunning viewpoints where people could see the beautiful coast and ocean and it was a well known lovers trek. In the old days of government he wasn't allowed to stop people walking on his land to get to see the beautiful coast and the fabulous sea. His house was well always well protected from trespassers by thousands of square acres of fenced land, but now he has made hundreds of square miles of land are out of bounds for ordinary people.

      Is it fair that someone can become so rich that they can get to own all the land that God gave, or nature gave, to all creatures freely, and then stop everyone from ever walking on that land ever again? Whose liberty has been destroyed.

      I remember reading about a judge once who would go for a walk every week and sit on a nice bench to enjoy the country scenery. He knew that by law that if no one used the bench for a while the farmer who owned the land was allowed to close down the 'right of way' country footpath and take the bench away. This judge was defending the liberty of millions against the liberty of one person. A good guy, but libertarians won't get it.

    2. "The ruling class and the government are the same thing, and they have always been the same thing."

      Yes, that is why government must be hugely reduced and, most importantly, we need a free market for money. The currency system is the zionists tool of control. Gold is a captive market. Bitcoin is looking good.

    3. It takes govt enacting protection laws to create monopolies. Corporations buy govt influence and in return get legislation written protecting them from the competition of the market. You think you can print money ? You'll be arrested. Printing money is a monopoly created by govt laws for monopoly banks. There are many other examples.

      And as for the elite running the show if hivt is abolished, you have it back to front. The elites are the parasites that govt created, the elites are dependent on govt largess to create the monopolies that favour the elites. See my first paragraph.

      The anti libertarians are confused. All libertarianism is , is allowing people to conduct their affairs freely , with whomever they want, under common law. Bottom up common law, by precedent, not top down govt decree. There is nothing wrong with that. Rand Paul is a bad example of a libertarian. Because he is not a libertarian, no matter what he calls himself.

      I see the libertarian bashing gets support in the strangest places. By people generally who patently don't really know what libertarianism is.

    4. It doesn't seem like any political affiliation fits the character of what it was during it's inception. Just look at the difference between the 1700's version of Jeffersonian Republicanism compared to the circus of Republicans that call themselves such today.