United Discontent

Violation of Freedom Of The Press, Liberty Under Fire from Mainstream News

I wish the media would admit to blacklisting somebody, but what would be the use in that?

“yes, we’ve decided to stop talking about Ron Paul until you radicalists get over him!” – Rupert Murdoch (who owns News Corp, which owns the New York Times)

People are accusing Ron Paul supporters of being like Ayn Rand Objectivists, always winning polls because Objectivists are just incredibly highly opinionated.  The argument against us is that we internet savvy, young, and loud on the internet but this isn’t reflective of the actual opinion of most Americans.   The Rhetoric for why the opinions being expressed by the people are not represented on the spectacle of government is a deadly one.  We cannot accept any illegimate reasons for misrepesentation.  This is a democracy, where people are truely entitled to proper representation on the stage, isn’t that the american ideal we’ve fought for far and beyond property/consumerism/good health? (proper representation?)  How can we as americans sit and piss our lives away while we witness incidents of democratic heresy.  If we vote 80/20 and somebody says it 50/50 this is a deeper violation of our 1787 rights we fought for, then violation of our body as property or our house as property without a proper warrant or reason. MSNBC polls to ask “who did best among pundits” with Ron Paul winning by a landslide, while the formal MSNBC question after that is “who did better, Romney or Perry?” . New York times features a picture cutting out Pau.  Even the Daily Show which has John Stewart joking about how the aristocracy picked the two candidates they thought would be good for the GOP 4 months ago and are making the people accept it yet  even “oh my god: rick perry is going to be the next president” title of the show admits the truth of the matter.

This is clearly an implicit violation of freedom of the press.  We are not having our freedom-to  violated but our freedom from.  The press is free to say whatever it wants, legally, but it does not have freedom from the social elite (aristocracy) that influence politics.  This line should be severed.

No, bloggers are not being assassinated or tortured, and no state agency or private agency is trying to not allow me to type this, but somebody at LA TIMES framed the debate a certain way, somebody at NEW YORK TIMES had to frame the debate a certain way, if journalist are still under fire for telling the truth,  he was canned from new york times for speaking out against the IRAQ war (After spending 33 years in lebanon as a correspondant) then there is somebody getting fired right now for not wanting to ignore the problems and republish material that only supports the ideas of the ruling class.  Lord only know in 6 months and in 12 months when there is even more character assassination versus Ron Paul and a crazy amount of insane praise for Rick Perry, What can we do as citizens and as excited bloggers?  We must use our techno-opportunity for the good of those who truely need liberty!


Ron Paul Responds to Obama’s Job Speech


Brutus Oct 18, 1787 Part 2

Ron Paul suppresed by Bilderberg Group

“A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the people.” Men who, upon the call of the magistrate, offer themselves to execute the laws, are influenced to do it either by affection to the government, or from fear; where a standing army is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore, when the magistrate calls, will obey: but, where this is not the case, the government must rest for its support upon the confidence and respect which the people have for their government and laws.

The body of the people being attached, the government will always be sufficient to support and execute its laws, and to operate upon the fears of any faction which may be opposed to it, not only to prevent an opposition to the execution of the laws themselves, but also to compel the most of them to aid the magistrate; but the people will not be likely to have such confidence in their rulers, in a republic so extensive as the United States, as necessary for these purposes. The confidence which the people have in their rulers, in a free republic, arises from their knowing them, from their being responsible to them for their conduct, and from the power they have of displacing them when they misbehave: but in a republic of the extent of this continent, the people in general would be acquainted with very few of their rulers: the people at large would know little of their proceedings, and it would be extremely difficult to change them”

In light of the recent Debate that Ron Paul Won but neither the Media like New York Times, or La times give him any mention, it’s apparent that this has grown true.  That the aristocracy is so strong that the majority can loudly scream something, but they end up controlling certain opinions, opinion polls, the way our emotions of discontent our represented, and the way the world sees America.


Cognitive Dissonance for Americans with Globalization (2000)

taken from google

This is simultaneously both a demonstration of hemegony and the uselessness of information. There was a poll in 2000 in Business Week of over 1,024 interviews, over 70 percent favoring globalization, and recent polling backs up this information.  In 2004 the University of Maryland commisioned a poll showing that slightly more than 50 percent of respondents saw globalization as a positive thing.  It’s not surprising that at the same time large banks are preaching things like globally (recently the president of the Bank of America discussed taking money out of local investment and turning it into “global investment”), with advertisements from the Teda China convention center .  More from the great Manfred Steger :

“The polling data presented in the BusinessWeek cover story reveal the existence of a remarkable cognitive dissonance between the American people’s normative orientation toward globalization and their personal experiences in the globalizing world.  How can one explain that a sizeable majority of respondients are afraid fof the negative economic impact of globalization (open door policy) while at the same time deeming globalization to be a good thing?  One obvious answer is ideology.  Promarket visions of globalization have shaped a large part of American opinion, even if people’s daily experience reflect a less favoraable picture.  For example,  BusinessWeek article tells the harrowing story of a factory worker employed by the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in Dadsen, Alabama.  Having lost his job after Goodyear shifted most of its tire production to low-wage jobs in Mexico and Brazil, the worker was only recently rehired by the same company for less money.  Still, the article concludes this disturbing story by reaffirming the overall positive impact of economic globalization: “Polls have shown for years that a solid majority of Americans believe that open borders and free trade are good for the economy” – Manfred Steger

Yes, and repeating this statement over and over makes it true.  Its nuts.  America is in debt with magical money to IMF(an agency of the UN) since it dropped the gold standard in 1971 and the whole world based its global currency on the gold standarded dollar since the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference Agreement (united nations before there was any) made a global standard an aim (for banker).

Complaining about immigration but supporting open borders, free trade, and Rick Perry (an international Hawkist who fights for global presence) is like saying you vouch for internet security and safety but demand that the wifi hot spot be public and no computer can have any isolate protection!  who can operate without paranoia if he is constantly looking for somebody new on the horizon, a stranger, to walk in eagerly, yet fight on behalf of trans national corporations that depend on this open border free trade agreements? More recent Polls require further investigation.


Flores Magon to his young follower Praxedis G. Guerrero

Praxedis G. Guerrero was a young liberal revolutionary famous for the phrase “Mas vale morir de pie que vivir de rodillas”(It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees)  who lived during the Mexican Revolution.  Unlike the Zapata/Pancho Villa section of the revolution, he did a lot of his early work through press releases and political media rather than violence.  Their failed revolution of 1906 was due to a few things, one being the attempt to foster a revolution view a newspaper or a source of media, and second, due to the united states postal service both governments were already well informed of all the Junta’s commands.  A manifesto of 1911 might be worth reading heavily infleunced by kropotkin.  From canada Flores is writing young guerrero (22 at the time) some advice on running the paper

“We will need all the help you’ll lend us in the editing of the newspaper.  For our part, we will see if we can write something.  I write with great difficulty.  The posture in which I can do it is excessively uncomfortable and i had promised not to write for newspapers, but there is a need of writing and I will write, even if it is not much.  you will bear most of the load, but if something we get out on bail we will alleviate your hard work.
The newspaper is indispensable not only for our defense and to obtain resources for our defense by means of it, but to encourage those who are growing cold since they know nothing of the fight.  Many believe that we are free and upon not seeing any manifestation of the struggle, they think that everything is finished.  Others know that we are prisoners, but as they also notice that there is no struggle, because the secret works cannot be divulged, they must think that everything has been postponed and that there is no one outside of jail who continues in the work.  In both cases there is the same result: discouragementThe newspaper is needed…they make every effort to leave the cause without a press

Google is a fancy privatized post office,  I don’t think we can expect them to remain completely neutral in the war either.


Cato VI 1787 Section on the Growth of Tyranny and Incumbency

A key theme to Anti-Federalist thought which I enjoy is the relation of the people to it’s government.  People usually think of this in terms of how one would build a machine differently, as if I want one thats fast and light and  you want one that is slow but stable.   Most people debate in this fashion, my machine versus yours.  A key theme to anti-federalist thought is that the role of the government is that its function is different, and the role of the people is to constantly impeach and keep the power in check.  In the United States of America today we consider it a privelege to get to select the candidates to vote for, but the real privelege, lies in the ability to remove people from the seat of power once they are in power, not let them be re-elected.   Yet we see time and time and again, incumbency even though only 12 percent of the United States is happy with Congress over 90 percent receive incumbency, just like the 27 percent pay raise for CEO’s in 2010 of fortune 500 S and P companies with only .2 percent of directors of companies for stocks lose their jobs even with a volatile market, we do not punish people by not re-electing them or taking them out of power.  We don’t want to be so impolite.  Cato, in this brilliant essay, talks about the eventual corruption of power under one national consolidated government:

In every civilized community, even in those of the most democratic kind, there are principles which lead to an aristocracy—these are superior talents, fortunes, and public employments. But in free governments, the influence of the two former is resisted by the equality of the laws, and the latter by the frequency of elections, and the chance that every one has in sharing in public business; but when this natural and artificial eminence is assisted by principles interwoven in this government—when the senate, so important a branch of the legislature, is so far removed from the people, as to have little or no connexion with them; when their duration in office is such as to have the resemblance to perpetuity, when they are connected with the executive, by the appointment of all officers, and also, to become a judiciary for the trial of officers of their own appointments: added to all this, when none but men of opulence will hold a seat, what is there left to resist and repel this host of influence and power. Will the feeble efforts of the house of representatives, in whom your security ought to subsist, consisting of about seventy-three, be able to hold the balance against them, when, from the fewness of the number in this house, the senate will have in their power to poison even a majority of that body by douceurs of office for themselves or friends. From causes like this both Montesquieu and Hume have predicted the decline of the British government into that of an absolute one; but the liberties of this country, it is probable if this system is adopted, will be strangled in their birth; for whenever the executive and senate can destroy the independence of the majority in the house of representatives then where is your security?—They are so intimately connected, that their interests will be one and the same; and will the slow increase of numbers be able to afford a repelling principle? but you are told to adopt this government first, and you will always be able to alter it afterwards; this would be first submitting to be slaves and then taking care of your liberty; and when your chains are on, then to act like freemen.” – Cato


Ronnie Reeferseed Responds to Mayor Leffingwell, Council – Austin City Council August 25, 2011