Walter Cronkite Outed: ONE-WORLD GOVT SHILL!
nan
Feet of Clay-Walter Cronkite and One-World Government
| Geoff Metcalf 560 KSFO
It is generally not a very good idea to speak ill of the dead or
criticize icons. However, when the annoying facts of reality
overshadow perception of reputation, it would be hypocritical not to.
President Teddy Roosevelt once said, Patriotism means to stand by the
country. It does NOT mean to stand by the president or any other
public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands
by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he
efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to
the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his
duty to stand by the country. I have used that quote in the past to
support criticism of the current Oval Office squatter. However, this
time it applies equally to a revered, fatherly icon of American media.
Walter Cronkite, former CBS anchor, the most trusted man in America,
is out of the closet as a one worlder, globalist shill.
In a recent BBC interview, Uncle Walter said, American people are
going to have to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield
some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law. I
don't THINK so Wally. I would counter his arrogant pronouncement by
suggesting the American people are going to have to realize, and
remember, that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the foundation
upon which America's tenuous greatness rests. To yield anything, to
appease, to synthesize is to permit a cancer to grow. Walter's
comments were not a spontaneous slip of the tongue, but rather a
common theme developed and perpetuated. His BBC statements mirrored
his remarks to the World Federalist Association in October of 1999,
when he said, Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty.
That would be a bitter pill. He then went on to underscore the heresy
by saying, Time will not wait. Democracy, civilization itself, is at
stake. Within the next few years we must change the basic structure of
our global community from the present anarchic system of war to a new
system governed by a democratic U.N. federation.
Apparently the once-revered Cronkite has replaced the wisdom of the
founding fathers with the sophistry of Cecil Rhodes.
I have often said, It's not WHO is right or wrong, but WHAT is right
or wrong that is important. Who (Walter Cronkite) is a nice,
comfortable, wise old man we have been conditioned to accept as the
most trusted man in America. The corollary to the perceived good man
saying bad things is the vilified man saying correct things. J. Edgar
Hoover observed, We cannot defeat Communism with Socialism, nor with
secularism, nor with pacifism, nor with appeasement or accommodation.
... a soft attitude toward Communism can destroy us.
There are two significant quotes, allegedly taken from Bilderberg
meetings, which I have referenced in the past. The chilling Kissinger
quote is posted on my webpage (geoffmetcalf.com/423.html). The David
Rockefeller comments from the June 1991 Bilderberg meeting in Baden
Baden, Germany, I have only third hand. People can and will challenge
the accuracy of the quote, but the substance of it seems more than
probable. Allegedly speaking at a meeting at which then-Gov. Bill
Clinton and Vice President Dan Quayle were in attendance, Rockefeller
is reported to have said, We are grateful to the Washington Post, the
New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose
directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of
discretion for almost 40 years.He went on to explain: It would have
been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had
been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the
world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world
government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and
world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination
practiced in past centuries.
Former Marine Corps commandant general Charles Krulak recently
concluded a speech with a quote from the Book of Proverbs, The
integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the perverseness of
transgressors shall destroy them
(PR 11:3).
Geoff Metcalf is a talk show host for KSFO 560 AM.
www.geoffmetcalf.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
James
"nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f49fa86.03070...@posting.google.com...
"U.N. Credibility: The Ultimate Oxymoron"
Posted by Doc Farmer Wednesday, April 30, 2003
I keep hearing pundits and talking heads and ''experts'' on the news, saying
how the U.S. must involve the United Nations in post-conflict Iraq.
Their reason? We need the U.N.'s credibility.
Excuse me? WHAT credibility?
* The credibility that dragged the people of Iraq through 12 years
of torture, rape, and murder, while U.N. members flapped their collective
yap and did nothing? * The credibility that had the chance to take
down Saddam in 1991, but didn't because the Frogs said not to, thereby
placing tens of thousands of Iraqis in the gunsights of the Ba'ath party
after Bush 41 told them to rise up? * The credibility that sent the
IAEA into a nuclear facility without bleedin' Geiger counters? * The
credibility that sent Blix into Iraq for the largest game of ''blind man's
bluff'' in the history of the planet?
And lest you think that the U.N. has only recently ''flubbed,'' cast your
minds back to a place called Korea. The U.N. had the resources of the U.S.
and a large number of other countries to defend South Korea. The war raged
on, while Chinese and North Korean ''diplomats'' negotiated with the U.N.
These old-style Saddams played the U.N, like a Stradivarius. These bozos
tied up the U.N. over the shape of the negotiating table, for pity's sake.
And finally, when the shooting ceased, the U.N. couldn't even bring itself
to the point of victory. They agreed to a cease-fire.
The war never ended, folks.
The U.S. and Coalition forces could have easily won that war. Yes, it's
true. And that's taking nothing away from the brave efforts of the forces
who fought in Korea. They weren't allowed to win. The politicians and the
globalists didn't want a victory. They wanted a stalemate. Win and Lose,
Good and Evil, Black and White, these are all concepts they were trying to
move away from.
Imagine, if you will, that the U.N. had existed prior to the beginning of
World War II. A frightening concept, I'll grant you, but try. Assuming
that the U.N. would even ALLOW the U.S., Britain, Poland, and others to
defend themselves against Japanese and German aggression, do you think we'd
have won the war? Do you think the U.N. would have permitted such blatant
aggressive SELF DEFENSE by those nations who were attacked? And what about
our friends, the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys? They would've been
telling the world just how wonderful things were under Nazi occupation. The
Vichy Government would have been the ones at the Security Council, blocking
Roosevelt and Churchill. And back then, they would have succeeded.
And we'd all be speaking German now. Except the Jews, of course. There
wouldn't be any of them left. There also wouldn't be any blacks or Arabs or
Asians either, except in small pockets of controlled slave labor camps.
But there would be a U.N. It would contain one nation. And it would have
one leader. Or should I say Fuhrer?
The U.N. has failed time after time, conflict after conflict. Can anybody
name a REAL success they've had? I mean in conflict resolution, not feeding
the hungry. And they normally can't get THAT right either, quite frankly.
Private aid organizations normally do a FAR better job of getting assistance
to those who truly need it. The U.N., however, does a pretty good job of
getting assistance to the tyrants and despots.
Nowadays, the U.N. Security Council is looking at holding on to the
sanctions created under the bad-old-days of Saddam Hussein. Why? Could it
be that the U.N. actually made MONEY off of that deal? Correct me if I'm
wrong, but wasn't the U.N. actually taking a cut of the sales of that oil?
I believe it was 2%. And over the many years, 2% of all that oil can add up
to a rather tidy little nest egg. Saddam sure found that out. So did the
Frogs, the Krauts, the Sprouts, the Rooskies and our other so-called
''allies,'' now proud members of the Axis of Weasels. And the U.N. knew
that little of that ''oil for food'' money was actually going to food or
medicine or other assistance to the Iraqi people. They knew it was going to
weapons, and palaces. They knew it was going to government agencies of
member nations. But they did nothing. Why? Because they were making money
on the deal. And sadly, issues of right and wrong fly right out of the
window when folks like that are managing a cash flow that large.
And this is what the experts call ''credibility''?
The United Nations HAS no credibility. Neither does the Axis of Weasels or
CNN, for that matter. The United Nations didn't want to ''soil their
hands'' in the war. They have no business being involved in the peace.
The U.S. and the coalition President Bush built are FAR more credible than
the U.N. Why? Because they got the job done. The job the U.N. refused to
handle. The problem the U.N. itself helped to cause. The problem the U.N.
was actually making a profit from.
It's time for America to realize that the U.N. is a failure. Heaven knows,
we've got more than a half-century's worth of proof of that contention.
America funds almost a quarter of the U.N. America hosts the U.N. America
has taken the lion's share of responsibility in military actions on behalf
of the U.N.
And the U.N. has spat in our face for it.
Enough.
It's time for the U.S. to kick the U.N. out, preferably with a steel-toed
boot. It's time for the U.S. to withdraw from all U.N. activity, funding
and treaties. And it's time for the U.S. to seriously re-think our
relationships with those countries we have traditionally referred to as
''allies.'' Some of them are anything BUT allies of the U.S. We have to
have the guts to say this, and then do something about it.
Just one more thing. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has a bill before the
House of Representatives now about removing the United States from the
United Nations. The bill is HR 1146 and is titled ''The American
Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.'' To read about it, go to:
(http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?bill=1630511).
Dave Simpson
His liberalism implemented here in the USA, even short of the dupish
world government B.S. bankrupted New York City and was leading the USA
to financial ruin.
Only dupes and traitors want the UN subordined to a world government
of any kind, but particularly what evolves in this often-ugly real
world filled with failed societies and cultures, and lots and lots of
envy, resentment, and other anti-West and especially anti-USA motives.
Dave Simpson
ROBW
You a little slow?
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f49fa86.03070...@posting.google.com...
nan
Dear James,
Thanks for your informative post. It seems global leftist
indoctrination
has the United Nations' elite intelligensia confused about the
difference
between nations' being independent self-determined diversities and
being dependent conglomerates of diversity under one-world governance.
Isn't it ironic, though? The nefarious competing agendas for
one-world government are not unlike America's govt. mandate to the
*First Peoples* - the Indigenous Americans: assimilate and conform, or
suffer and die.
Where does one go to live if one doesn't WANT to be a serf living
under the dictates of the all-encompassing one-world governed society?
It is a Kafkaesque NIGHTMARE!
James, the original concept of the United Nations was excellent, but
the
UN's failure are those members who have corrupted the purpose of the
organization, and seek to make the UN the tool for world domination.
Regards, from Nan
nan
> This story broke like three weeks ago.
>
> You a little slow?
>
> robw
>
from Nan
Lone Haranguer
days. Their left-wing pundits are sinking their own boat.
YEEEEAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Gotta love it.
LZ
Marie A.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Feet of Clay-Walter Cronkite and One-World Government
> | Geoff Metcalf 560 KSFO
Great article, Nan. You'll now notice many young liberal Propeller
Heads posting in here bitching and moaning about one, Just ONE cable
News Network, Fox News, finally giving another side of the story, and
carrying on about how this spells the end of democracy as we know it.
But you'll also notice not a peep from this same crowd during that
long stretch, from the very beginning of network television news up to
Fox's recent appearance, about the total leftist slant of news
reporting. We had 30 years of the likes of Cronkite, Rather, Jennings,
Koppel, Moyers and the rest of that crowd dominating every single
damned television network, and these fair-minded folks thought that
was just peachy-keen. And I think you remember what we were generally
told when we complained about it, huh?
Even when I was a lot younger and somewhat liberal in my politics, I
thought it was a bit much when Cronkite and Rather and the rest of
that network gang near broke out in tears, hinting at creeping
Fascism, on election nights when republicans swept elections. Remember
those wonderful times? (Marie)
Dave Simpson
> Even when I was a lot younger and somewhat liberal in my politics, I
> thought it was a bit much when Cronkite and Rather and the rest of
> that network gang near broke out in tears, hinting at creeping
> Fascism, on election nights when republicans swept elections. Remember
> those wonderful times?
Added to that was the scuzz such as Peter Jennings and his "temper
tantrum" garbage, he of smirk and
head-shaking-when-referring-to-Bush's-Middle-East-policy fame.
Jennings is another example why the liberal media have next to no
respect whatsoever among the intelligent and more grown-up in American
society.
Dave Simpson
ROBW
Ah, o.k.
robw
ROBW
week.
Nice "piggy back."
Wanker.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3F02EF1F...@direcway.com...
ROBW
It's a sign of intelligence.
Liberal people are much more open minded, and therefore are much more
creative.
I mean, you always hear about "leftist values" being taught at colleges. You
know, higher education and all that.
You never hear, "There are leftist values being taught at that trade
schools.!!!!"
By the way, I don't know how old you are, but if you're younger, ask someone
you trust just how influential Cronkite was as THE media figure when he was
on his game and broadcasting the news every evening.
Of course the world is liberal.
It's the way we want it.
cheers,
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Marie A." <LetEmE...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1dc521ed.03070...@posting.google.com...
nan
Dear Marie,
Do I ever remember those times! Worse yet, they all "interpreted" for
us what they never allowed to hear on election nights! Thank God for
CSpan's coverage. I thought it was very stupid for both Partys to
allow the very same stale Media pundits to determine the election
debate formats, which were CONTROLLED, and not true formal debates.
Those Media guys NEVER acknowledged Third Party platforms.
Of course, now I am reformed from pseudo-liberal to Libertarian.
Are you the same good ole Marie? Or a new good ole Marie?
Best regards, from Nan
nan
Dear Dave,
I cannot stand Peter Jenning's condescending sour air of superiority.
Dan Rather is depressed and depressing. They were not reporters, they
were self-styled pundits.
Regards, from Nan
"Libs R_Dumber_Than_Rocks" Steuben@hotmail.com Steamroller
If Jennings were an American, he would be a Democrat Party hero.
Actually, he may be a Democrat Party hero, even though he is NOT an
American.
nan
> Of course the media has always been left leaning.
> It's a sign of intelligence.
Quote from Robert L. Kocher's article, In Answer to Liberal Reality,
Part 2 - Liberal Narcissism:
"Why liberals or "sources" believe or disbelieve in anything, or who
thinks who is strange is not my frame of reference except for purposes
of clinical appraisal, curiosity, or scholarship, or in those instance
when such matters should be taken into account in the exercise of
diplomacy. As the architect in Fountainhead replied when asked what he
thought about a certain person,
"I don't." - unless they pose a threat to me."
> Liberal people are much more open minded, and therefore are much more
> creative.
There is no evidence from the so-called "liberal" quasi-left factions
of their
being "open minded." They demonstrate they are oppressive and
self-righteous, slandering in gross misrepresentations and mockingly
brutal, self-satisfied and extremely intolerant.
Furthermore, they, so-called liberals, have no concept nor realization
of LIBERALISM.
Displays of partisan angst does not present LIBERALISM.
LIBERALISM is not a fucking political party loyalty! Phoney-liberal
partisans
are not LIBERAL - they form an orthodoxy.
> I mean, you always hear about "leftist values" being taught at colleges. You
> know, higher education and all that.
> You never hear, "There are leftist values being taught at that trade
> schools.!!!!"
>
> By the way, I don't know how old you are, but if you're younger, ask someone
> you trust just how influential Cronkite was as THE media figure when he was
> on his game and broadcasting the news every evening.
>
> Of course the world is liberal.
> It's the way we want it.
>
Sorry Rob,
The world is not "liberal" and who is the "We"?
Furthermore, there is nothing liberal about pro-socialist/neoMarxist
leftist partisan activism - neither in thought, word nor deed.
Pseudo-liberalism is predicated on propaganda and being
embraced by its delusional self-aggrandized group-think proponents.
LIBERALISM is not a political party nor is it political ideology.
LIBERALISM is non-partisan, and LIBERALISM does not exist in
petty exant political spheres or in dank academic halls.
LIBERALISM it is not expressed in self-proclaiming tones heard in
academic snobbery or heard in intellectual airs of superiority.
Read your words again in your post. Your words malign Liberalism.
from Nan
Dave Simpson
> Dear Dave,
> I cannot stand Peter Jenning's condescending sour air of superiority.
> Dan Rather is depressed and depressing. They were not reporters, they
> were self-styled pundits.
>
> Regards, from Nan
Dear Nan,
You, I, and countless other Americans understand that they are
editorializing and crusading on behalf of their liberal agenda and
True Believers, and that is why better Americans more and more want
nothing to do with the liberal media, and that is why they continue to
lose market share and alternative sources are continuing to grow.
Also, bear in mind that the liberal weenies who have wrecked the
mainstream media are trying their own forms of alternative sources,
but so far have been abject failures, so what survivors there are for
left-wing "alternative" shows often are found on NPR and PBS and
elsewhere on the public dole, because they have failed in open
competition of ideas.
Regards, from Dave
Dave Simpson
> Of course the media has always been left leaning.
> It's a sign of intelligence.
Far from it, given their goals and objectives and motives show a
lack of it.
In fact, most liberals are not only unrealistic, but ignorant and
liberal politicians thrive on exploiting their ignorant constituents.
> Liberal people are much more open minded, and therefore are much more
> creative.
They're immature and often retarded in their grasp of reality and in
their character development.
> I mean, you always hear about "leftist values" being taught at colleges. You
> know, higher education and all that.
> You never hear, "There are leftist values being taught at that trade
> schools.!!!!"
Colleges are where there is tenure and where those who are going
into government pass through.
> By the way, I don't know how old you are, but if you're younger, ask someone
> you trust just how influential Cronkite was as THE media figure when he was
> on his game and broadcasting the news every evening.
He's out of it now.
> Of course the world is liberal.
You are incorrect.
> It's the way we want it.
It's not the way most people, and realistic people, want it.
But realism and liberals too often repel each other, as with you.
Dave Simpson
Lone Haranguer
ROBW wrote:
>
> Gee, I bet CBS was on the tube for all of ten minutes at our place last
> week.
Better toss out the lifejackets.
>
> Nice "piggy back."
> Wanker.
No charge, poopsie.
LZ
Scott Kuli
stated that he would like to see a one World government. It is not
uncommon for Bilderberger types to approach people who have a great
amount of respect among the public, in order to get them to shill for
their cause. Walter Lippman was asked to be a Bilderberger, and had
the good sense to turn them down. I know this because a man who worked
as a researcher for someone who wrote a biography of Lippman, and who
is a former professor of US history told me that Lippman was asked to
join the nut club.
This idea that a "World government" could somehow "outlaw war"
is a fools' dream. In order to practice what the UN types consider
"security", it's a case of war by the state against the individual,
and we frankly would be better off to see nuclear weapons fall from
the sky than to live in a state of oppression under a World
government. Better to die on ones' feet than live on ones' knees.
ROBW
That little controller with all the buttons............
point it and change the channel.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f49fa86.03070...@posting.google.com...
ROBW
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f49fa86.03070...@posting.google.com...
ROBW
socially and culturally.
robw
--
"Sing while you may" Edward Ka-Spel
"Dave Simpson" <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.03070...@posting.google.com...
nan
> I read a few years ago a quote by Walter Cronkite, in which he
> stated that he would like to see a one World government. It is not
> uncommon for Bilderberger types to approach people who have a great
> amount of respect among the public, in order to get them to shill for
> their cause. Walter Lippman was asked to be a Bilderberger, and had
> the good sense to turn them down. I know this because a man who worked
> as a researcher for someone who wrote a biography of Lippman, and who
> is a former professor of US history told me that Lippman was asked to
> join the nut club.
> This idea that a "World government" could somehow "outlaw war"
> is a fools' dream. In order to practice what the UN types consider
> "security", it's a case of war by the state against the individual,
> and we frankly would be better off to see nuclear weapons fall from
> the sky than to live in a state of oppression under a World
> government. Better to die on ones' feet than live on ones' knees.
>
In that awful scenario, the Omnipotent Power of the One-State is
irreversible. During my "liberal" youth, reading Walter Lippman,
Norman Douglas and Santayana (sp?)stirred liberal passions - we were
so pure in thought and idealistic then.
Today, as an attachment to One-World government ideology is the idea
that universal egalitarianism will end all poverty as well as end all
injustices and inequities caused by
theism/conservatism/racism/genderism/sexism/classism/capitalism/phobias/consumerism,
et al, and aggression too.
Enjoy the INDEPENDENCE, from Nan
nan
> stated that he would like to see a one World government. It is not
> uncommon for Bilderberger types to approach people who have a great
> amount of respect among the public, in order to get them to shill for
> their cause. Walter Lippman was asked to be a Bilderberger, and had
> the good sense to turn them down. I know this because a man who worked
> as a researcher for someone who wrote a biography of Lippman, and who
> is a former professor of US history told me that Lippman was asked to
> join the nut club.
> This idea that a "World government" could somehow "outlaw war"
> is a fools' dream. In order to practice what the UN types consider
> "security", it's a case of war by the state against the individual,
> and we frankly would be better off to see nuclear weapons fall from
> the sky than to live in a state of oppression under a World
> government. Better to die on ones' feet than live on ones' knees.
>
What should be the role of journalism and/or the media:
to inform, to report or to educate? Of course, the media
is an instant dose of biased and filtered information.
Cronkite quote, "Educating Americans should rest with the media..."
Excerpt from article re: Walter Cronkite,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cronkite said he fears Americans are learning less and less about what
their government is doing, and worse, they do not seem to care.
He cited recent presidential elections that have seen less than half
of registered voters go to the polls. The result has been leaders who
are chosen by about a quarter of the electorate.
"That means we don't have a democracy," he said. "We've got an
oligarchy here, not a democracy. Our democracy is in some danger if we
don't concentrate on educating the populace."
Celebrating Independence, regards from Nan
Educating Americans should rest with the media, he said. But more
often than not, nightly newscasts and the networks' magazine-style
shows focus more on entertainment than hard news. Cronkite said this
approach is the result of directives from the companies that own the
networks to make things more "interesting."
WorldNetDaily
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
nan
>
> > Of course the media has always been left leaning.
> > It's a sign of intelligence.
>
> Far from it, given their goals and objectives and motives show a
> lack of it.
>
> In fact, most liberals are not only unrealistic, but ignorant and
> liberal politicians thrive on exploiting their ignorant constituents.
>
> > Liberal people are much more open minded, and therefore are much more
> > creative.
>
> They're immature and often retarded in their grasp of reality and in
> their character development.
>
who calls leftist/"liberal" humanist claims are a "sham." Excerpt from
his article, "What Makes A Leftist?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course pressing ego, and self-righteousness are not confined to
leftists. It is just that leftism is the principal political
expression of such needs. The needs can also be met by religion, and
its critics often described communism as a religion. Why people choose
politics is unclear. Presumably the broad exposure that politics
provides attracts people with the highest ego needs. That would both
explain the generally greater political activism of the political left
compared to the somnolent right, and why leftists so often have a
"spare me the details" or "Don’t worry about the facts"
orientation. For them it is the activism itself rather than what is
advocated that is the point of the exercise. As long as the cause is
both generally praiseworthy and disruptive it will suffice. The
insincerity of the leftist is an abiding theme in the many writings of
Ayn Rand (e.g. Rand, 1957) who sees the hunger for power as their real
motivation.
In addition some leftists just think themselves clever for being able
to criticize. Things that they do not understand genuinely outrage
some. Some simply seek advantage for their own social class. Some,
particularly the young, are idealists. Others are cynical
opportunists, who cloak their hatred of their fellow man in a cloak of
good intentions. Some know themselves to be weird and preach
tolerance for all weirdness out of sheer self-interest. It seems
probable that some Leftists simply lust to smash things; the
revolutionary and Trotskyite left often use the word "smash" in their
slogans, e.g. smash racism, smash capitalism. They presumably are
responsible for the violence and destruction that often accompanies
leftist street and campus demonstrations. In other circumstances many
would have joined Hitler’s brown-shirts.
NEO-LIBERALISM - The Past Revived
What North Americans now call "liberal" is a long way from what was
called "liberal" in the 19th century and earlier. Liberal ideas once
sought to elevate individual rights above the claims of state and
community. They hark back at least as far as the writings of Adam
Smith (1776) and J.S. Mill (1859). Such classical liberalism had
considerable influence in the 19th century, particularly in Britain
but was eclipsed in the early 20th century by the rise of Marxist,
Fabian and Fascist ideas. Late in the 20th century under the influence
Hayek (1944), Ayn Rand (1977) and many others, they were revived and
extended, and came to be known as "neo-liberalism" or "Libertarianism"
or more popularly as "Reaganomics" or "Thatcherism" from their most
successful political proponents.
Surprisingly, modern-day North American "liberals" generally view
neo-liberalism as anathema, so much so that it has found its home
entirely on the political right in recent times.
The reason why "liberals" hate neo-liberalism is not obvious.
Neo-Liberalism is pro-change, particularly in the economic sphere, and
aims to break down government-imposed restrictions on what people can
do. Its application has led to all sorts of economic reorganization,
some of which has been very disruptive to many people. Globalisation
is one of its manifestations. So how did such a revolutionary doctrine
find its home on the right rather than among the normally pro-change
Leftists?
The answer is that Leftists really have no concern about human
advancement and their concern" for the poor is a sham. What they
really want is power, and simple causes that will win them praise, and
drama in which they can star as the good guys. Neo-liberalism meets
none of those needs. Although neo-liberal policies lead to slow but
steady human economic advancement and undreamt of prosperity, they
also diffuse power, are far from simple and are undramatic. It is hard
work just to understand neo-liberalism and there are no immediate
rewards inbuilt. One could try going onto the streets and
demonstrating in favour of "comparative advantage" (one of the
essential ideas underpinning advocacy of free trade) but that would
almost certainly lead to total incomprehension rather than win kudos.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Regards, from Nan
Slatner t Eliot
Sarah
One more time, you're posting _COMPLETELY_ off-topic in this
newsgroup, pumping your wingnut religionist crap.
Keep it where it belongs, girl, _NOT_ in this newsgroup.