Thursday, August 18, 2016

Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes What Hillary Clinton Really Represents (Video)

Abby Martin gives the shocking low down on Hilary Clinton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV_PLCC6jeI

Published on 17 Apr 2016
Digging deep into Hillary's connections to Wall Street, Abby Martin reveals how the Clinton's multi-million-dollar political machine operates. 


Normally I would hate Trump - who is like a big narcissistic baby with a rattle who comes across as a nasty conservative - but when I look at the soulless Hilary Clinton Trump looks positively human compared. I would prefer a Jill Stein/ Bernie Sanders ticket but even Micheal Hudson is saying Trump would be better than Hilary. At least we in Europe would get to live for another four more years.

How is it that the American public don't see this evil? They' probably like my friends and just rely on MSM for their news. I don't don't normally like the libertarians but at least some of them are exposing the crimes of the ruling elite. The left right need to unite against the elite, except the right would give the mega everything they want - complete power.

The Libertarians.


The libertarian position is based on the meritocracy which at face value seems to have merit, but only to the simple minded. A pure meritocracy leads to the opposite as the winners soon gain complete control and then they become the self perpetuating super rich who get even more mega rich in their sleep. They become our rulers who believe in small government so they can rule unimpeded without us being able to do a thing about it.

Then we end up back in the Middle Ages, the Dark Ages, a medieval society with rulers and serfs. The con is that tolls would replace taxes when the private sector charges for it 'services' for as much as the market can stand, until the pips quick, with private police and armies enforcing the tolls.

I tell libertarians that they are totally free and that no one is forcing them to live here. But if you join a club you will agree to live by its rules. If libertarians don't like it here they are free to leave and go and live in their libertarian state where there is no government if they wish.  No one is stopping them.

11 comments:

Bob Roddis said...

This truly is the nub of the dispute. The following claim is totally false, unsupported by facts, logic, evidence or history starting off with claiming that a prohibition on the initiation of violence leads necessarily to a “pure meritocracy”:

A pure meritocracy leads to the opposite as the winners soon gain complete control and then they become the self perpetuating super rich who get even more mega rich in their sleep. They become our rulers who believe in small government so they can rule unimpeded without us being able to do a thing about it.

“Winners” in the market cannot and never have gained “complete control” of much of anything. Without the support of the state’s SWAT teams and prisons, the only thing that a market “winner” can do is ASK for someone to buy their stuff and to keep buying it.

When I discovered Rothbard in 1973, I heard about how Gabriel Kolko had demonstrated that the “Robber Barons” could not and did not exploit laissez faire but instead were behind the “progressive” legislation that allowed them to monopolize using government regulation. They found that monopolization was impossible under laissez faire. I still have the book:

http://tinyurl.com/qjnj7e5

You can still buy it.

http://tinyurl.com/hywr45l

This is ALWAYS the case. Regardless, the “progressives” will always lie about the actual history.

Gary Hart said...

Michael Hudson says that the job of a politician is to deliver his supporters to his backers and that is their problem with Trump, they don't own him. It is hard to know Trump's position on a lot things because the press distorts almost everything he says. On one night a few days ago I counted how long ABC spent bashing Trump. It was twelve minutes of the broadcast. Then then said one sentence about Hillary and on to the floods. Ridiculous. Trump says the wrong thing, he says "America first" and that doesn't sit well with our rulers.

Kaivey said...

Hi Gary, even The Real News Network is supporting Hilary. George Soros puts money into The Real News. Paul Jay was saying that Hilary isn't that good but Trump would be a disaster, so to keep the left going Paul Jay recommended voting for Hilary for now and hoping a real left movement, a viable third party, takes off in the future. The same thing is said about The British Labour Party, that they are always better than the Tories. Yes, of course, but by voting for New Labour because the Tories would be worse, you just end up with the Tories Mk2. After Hilary will come another right wing democrat and it will never end. So I think it is better not to have power and have a proper left alternative. Eventually, the electorate might vote for it.

Kaivey said...

Hi Gary,

In a libertarian state the bandits and crooks will eventually take control. You don't have to reads a book, or go to any links, to know that. The Koch brothers fund libertarian movements. The libertarianism movements are a con.

Ryan Harris said...


If the Democratic party candidate wins, progressives lose.
If the Republic party candidate wins, progressives lose worse.

But if the Democratic party candidate loses this election because progressives vote for Jill Stein, the Democratic party either has to move to the left or they have to make deals with the Greens in the future. In the end, progressives win if they vote for Jill. Sure Trump is worse than Hillary in some ways, he is "Right" and Hillary is "center right" Splitting hairs on policy differences.

Kaivey said...

You're right, Ryan, a vote for Jill stein would not be wasted. It would still put Trump in which hopefully would bring us peace with the Russians for now, and it would drive the Democrats further left. Better still would be a Greens/ Democrat pact.

Matt Franko said...

"George Soros puts money into..."

George Soros is putting money into MMT people via his INET.... So if you support the MMT people you are supporting Soros too.... FYI....

Tom Hickey said...

The MMT people who were formerly associated the Roosevelt Institute wisely resigned over Peterson sponsorship.

IN my view, those that joined INET shouldn't have joined in the first place and should resign over Soros sponsorship.

But maybe they think that Peterson is out of paradigm but Soros is in paradigm. I don't know.

But MMT has already been tested in the political arena and failed under present conditions. Stephanie apparently could not get Bernie into paradigm and if Bernie would not go there, who in the current crop of politicians would? None that I can see on the horizon, although Trump is probably the best bet, since being in RE he understands finance and accounting.

Bob Roddis said...

Trump is probably the best bet, since being in RE he understands finance and accounting.

Plus, he's a crook. Emissions of new funny money always amount to theft of purchasing power from those who didn't get the new emission first. Thus, new funny money emissions generally transfer additional wealth to the wealthy, especially to those who buy and sell real estate and other assets. I could see Trump loving MMT.

Tom Hickey said...

If MMT is acknowledged politically, it is likely to be by the right. The progressive left can't get beyond "soaking the rich." It really does look like class envy. Conversely, the right hates taxes and functional finance shows that taxes do not "pay for" spending as erroneously beleived.

But even the so-called Libertarian right doesn't want a a level playing field, either. See Peter Thiel on entrepreneurs preferring monopoly to competition.

Even small entrepreneurs know that they need to find a niche and exploit it as much as they can before word gets out. This is essentially the life of eBay sellers always trying to stay ahead of the competition. They depend on hitting a run and then moving on as the rate of profit falls with rising competition and the increase in bottom feeders.

MRW said...

Emissions of new funny money always amount to theft of purchasing power from those who didn't get the new emission first.

Not if you have proper fiscal policy, which hasn't existed for 30 years. Congress abdicated that role to the Federal Reserve, allowing it to rule with monetary policy. Gave Greenspan the power he craved.