Anti-banker Accused of Being a Jew Hater

[Reboot]

Collectivism Taught in Australia

I was even accused of being a "Jew hater" because I brought up international bankers as a root cause of attacks on individual freedom.

From G. Edward Griffin's August 8th-14th, 2009 newsletter

Dear Mr. Griffin,

This year, I enrolled for the Master of US Studies at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, pretty much to quench my curiosity as to what goes on at the centre, what's being taught in the course, and what direction the students lean. No surprises that most of these young Australians in the course lean towards collectivism, advocacy of massive tax hikes for middle to high income earners, groupthink solutions that give more deciding power to the state regarding terrorism and climate change, and even moulding the world towards totalitarianism if President Obama's heart desires it (the hero-worship towards him in this class has been creepy at best). One girl even said Australia should donate 5% of its GDP to foreign aid, and thought it would be a good thing if we were all taxed 100% of our income for the sake of funding all state-run programs to maximize peoples' reliance on government - my jaw dropped. I'm described as the token libertarian of the class simply because of my advocacy for limited government, freedom of speech and of the individual, as well as being vigilant and distrustful towards people in power, although my views are constantly looked down upon as "funny", theirs is just outright frightening. I was even accused of being a "Jew hater" because I brought up international bankers as a root cause of attacks on individual freedom.

This group claims to be very "pro-American", but I can't help but think they're just pro-Democrat simply because it's the non-Bush party, and is supposedly the party with a "superior moral claim" to race relations in America, so they feel that it is their prudent duty to take on socialist beliefs in economics to help out the needy minorities from low socio-economic backgrounds - I personally think my group in this class has been rick-rolled. I'm quite amazed they appointed me as Treasurer of the United States Studies Society, since my ideological perspective is so different from theirs as a whole.

Anyway, in one of our units this semester, we have US Economic Policy and Regulation. I told our lecturer that I'd "read Greider's Secrets of the Temple and Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island" (he was a bit shocked when I told him that I'd read Greider's book cover-to-cover). I'm always amused by this class how they constantly harp on how the US monetary system must be placed in the hands of "wiser men" (amazing, and I'm the only one who's read Greider!) if the Federal Reserve or the government isn't working properly, and in their language, that usually means it has to be taken away from those "evil right-wing conservatives" and into the hands of those "good natured left-wing liberals". This controlled opposition mentality is no more evident that what's displayed with our required reading, which is The Conscience of a Liberal: Reclaiming America From the Right by Paul Krugman, who is so extremely partisan in this book, that his purple-faced, foaming-at-the-mouth view of America is coloured by his false perception that the nation is actually "center-left" and the big, bad right-wing elites have been stopping America's "progression" into liberal utopian prosperity. It's like he's flirting with the right ideas, but he constantly uses incorrect labels that make his arguments confusing and piddly. I admit that I haven't finished reading the book yet, but so far, Krugman doesn't point out any useful solutions to America's financial problems, instead he's too busy painting a hyperbolic stereotype of the American Right, that there should be a "new New Deal" and that competition is one of the greatest sins of all simply because there are losers in such a system, and there needs to be an altruistic government to help them without question. He's probably the first writer and economist I've ever heard speak of the "welfare state" as something good - and this is the core text for the ecomomics class!

Another piece of hilarity lies in Krugman's introduction where he accuses Obama of attacking other Democrats in the primaries from both left and right perspectives, in my view, this was actually a good thing because it seemed at the time that Obama was objective and could see the good and the bad in these pointless debates and move on from the "left-right" paradigms, but Krugman spoke like he was indicting Obama for some sort of ideological betrayal, but he couldn't have been giddier when it's revealed Obama was just playing politics in the old reliable Machiavellian methodology.

No-one in my class has yet questioned the text, probably because it preaches to the choir, and they fit the bill perfectly, like good little foot soldiers. Some were even giddy enough to dance around after class like they were given a caffine rush because the lecturer just "had to be a liberal for prescribing that book! YAY!"

I'm very tempted to reference your book in some of the essays due this semester, because there are some topics that have cropped up during class that I think I can refute in the essays.

Australia, 2009 Aug 11

[kolnidre]

Impressively written. I didn't know there was anyone left under the age of 30 capable of writing well and thinking independently.

My initial reaction was 'Oh, shit. If this is what we're up against (and we are), there is no hope left.'

But then I thought, now that university has gotten so expensive and so many more people have weighed the cost of massive debt versus the "education" offered, a lot of people choose to skip it, and even fewer go into graduate programs. There is a class divide nearly parallel to the ideological divide, where the real workers wouldn't touch socialism with a rubber suit on and the university crowd are redder than Trotsky.

[Reboot]

Slightly edited excerpt from an alternative science magazine:

From Science to Faith

Scientists of Tesla's time were called "Natural Philosophers". They followed a rigid set of guidelines to develop the basic laws and scientific principles. These guidelines, known as the scientific method, consisted of five steps:

1) Observe the phenomenon

2) Form a hypothesis (an untested theory)

3) Develop a test for the hypothesis

4) Compare the results of the test with the predictions of the hypothesis and either revise the hypothesis or accept the theory

5) Continue to test the theory

Rigid adherence to these standards has guided the scientific minds over the centuries and the underlying principle to scientists were that theories, and, even laws were not written in stone. When empirical evidence (results gained through experimentation) contradicted the theory, the theory was revised...not the test results.

During the first part of the 20th century, conventional science crossed the threshold from empirical science to that of theoretical science. Very little is done to test any theory, and everything that contradicts the theory is heresy. The theory becomes a faith.

Faith requires that theories become facts, and that heretics are crucified by any means possible.

----

We have also moved away from natural law/politics.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RichardMaybury - read his Uncle Eric books.