|
Attacks Don't Work, Now They
Mimic Us
BJSchaefer
Nolan Chart
Sunday December 16, 2007
So, in my daily research that I conduct, I came
across an interesting article over at the Centre
for Research on Globalization written by Richard C. Cook that,
at first whiff, smells interesting, possibly even eye opening.
Interesting and eye opening it was, as a clear attempt that the
propogandists, upon failing to stop the rush to Ron Paul, are
now trying to do damage control.
But let me back up a bit, and introduce who exactly Richard Cook
and this Centre are, and why they even remotely matter. According
to their site the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) is:"An
independent research and media group of writers, scholars journalists
and activists. The CRG is based in Montreal. It is a registered
non profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada."
Not an "evil" or "fringe" organization, by
any means, just your general run of the mill activist organization.
Mr. Cook, also not a "fringe" person, is a: "retired
U.S. federal government analyst, whose career included service
with the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the Food and Drug Administration,
the Carter White House, and NASA, followed by twenty-one years
with the U.S. Treasury Department. His articles on economics,
politics, and space policy have appeared on numerous websites,
and he is cited in the Wikipedia article on "Economic Democracy"
as one of the world’s leading monetary reformers. He is
the author of Challenger Revealed: An Insider’s Account
of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of
the Space Age, called by one reviewer, "the most important
spaceflight book of the last twenty years."
(Article continues below)
Interesting background, and presents the image that this guy
knows what he's talking about. But the meat of his article displays
a use of logic that can only be followed with a liberal use of
cognitive dissonance, and revisionism of history that could only
pass muster inside some of the more left leaning groups.
Don't believe me? Then follow along with Mr. Cook's own writings.
He starts off by saying the following:
· Money should be viewed by progressives as a) a medium
of exchange, b) created by law, c) to serve the needs of the individual
and the nation’s physical economy. Under the progressive
definition, money is the servant of man. · Money is viewed
by conservatives as a) a commodity, b) having intrinsic value,
c) equivalent to "wealth," d) properly usable for anything
the owner desires, including usury and speculation. Under the
conservative definition, man is the servant of money.
Ok, other than the general bias that suggests these are mutually
exclusive ideas, nothing really out of the ordinary is here. But
this is just the beginning after all. Just two bullets down he
says the following:
"In American history, the progressive definition of money
has prevailed when the government has controlled or strongly influenced
the creation of money. The conservative definition has prevailed
when private bankers have controlled or strongly influenced the
creation of money, particularly during the century since the Federal
Reserve was created in 1913."
If you didn't catch that, he just asserted that since the Federal
Reserve has been in power money has been viewed as a "commodity",
having intrinsic value. Evidently Mr. Cook needs a dictionary.
Intrinsic means: "belonging to the essential nature of constitution
of a thing". So, by this logic displayed by Mr. Cook, a gold
standard is only a medium of exchange and doesn't have intrinsic
value, but paper fiat does. He does get one thing correct though;
the first century of our country did have money as the servant
of man, while the Federal Reserve century had it the other way
around. He does get it correct that the Federal Reserve is bad,
but for the exact opposite reasons he gave.
If that was the totality of my disgust with his article, I would
have just written it off as general MSM propaganda, but oh no,
he continues, ever valiantly, to prop up the insanity with more
insanity!
"The right of the federal government to issue money is contained
in the Constitution but is not clearly defined. It was more clearly
defined under the Articles of Confederation. This indicates that
financiers were influential in the drafting of the Constitution."
Nope, not clearly defined at all, ONLY GOLD AND SILVER legal
tender isn't clear enough for this man, nor should it be for you,
as a progressive either.
He asserts that Andrew Jackson opposed banks. Not a central bank
mind you, all banks. And evidently this was out of a fear of,
not inflation, but of fractional reserve banking. This article
goes on and on with these sometimes outright lies, like claiming
Lindbergh and the Federal Reserve opponents as progressives; claiming
that 19th century authors influenced the founding fathers (because
obviously, apart from being insightful, they could time travel
as well); claiming that the "American System" was created
in Europe in opposition to laissez-faire economics; and claiming
that the "Constitution created a commonwealth of citizens
which has a right to control its own money supply like any other
public utility". Right....
This article can pretty much be summed up as such. Mr. Cook,
seeing the success Ron Paul as at impassioning people on such
a boring topic, is attempting weld the core passion, anti-Federal
Reserve sentiment, into a "progressive" stance that
he feels Democrat's should use to try to gain the Presidency.
Hardly does this man realize that the people inclined to actually
care about what the Federal Reserve does are also the type of
people that are going to do some fact checking and probably already
have some understanding that time travel doesn't exist, fiat money
doesn't have intrinsic value, and that gold is not created by
government.
So, as we can now tell, the opposition, finding that ignoring
us doesn't work, finding that attacking us isn't working, is now
trying to play "us too" by taking Ron Paul sound bites
and working it into their preexisting semantics. Unfortunately,
not all imitation is flattering. But at least we have them realizing
we're stealing their troops and are tying to keep those remaining
that might swing, that's a plus.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
