Bilderberg Member gave $2.6M to Ron Paul's "superPAC"

[christian]

Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal and member of the Bilderberg group, gave $2.6M to the superPac group connected to Ron Paul's campaign. Why?

There are now those, that argue, that the Austrian School of Economics, endorsed by Ron Paul, is a globalist fabrication, because it has been funded by the Rockefellers and that if that economic system would be implemented, the bankers would legally own all the land through their corporations and because they have all the gold, they'd own all the money and would then legally have all the power they want.

Now in my opinion this is either a misunderstanding or disinfo. I think this is supposed to create confusion, as Alex Jones often said: "The best thing the globalists could do to discredit Ron Paul would be to endorse him." I'd like to hear your opinions on that.

As I understand the idea behind landownership as proposed by the Austrian school goes like "you own what you use". So a small group could only own all the land, when people would do it for them through corporations. People wouldn't have to do that. Why would I want to work for a corporation that exploits me and others, when I could legally own my own piece of land, maybe with likeminded people?

When it comes to money, I think a free-market monetary system is entirely possible inside the framework of the Austrian School, this was even formulated by Hayek. This means, people can simply choose, what they want to use a means of exchange and when a tiny minority has all the gold, people would naturally use something else most probably.

It is important to note, that the indictment of many figureheads of the elite is still on the table, they committed crimes and they must be held accountable for humanity to move on in decency. For that reason, I don't see how they could just slide into any new system and continue their criminal activity anyways.

The Austrian School is not completly fixed and not an absolute system anyways, so I guess Ron Paul does not have it as his bible and neither do I.

-------

Henry Makow: Let's be real about Ron Paul Dec. 4, 2011
The Atlantic Wire: Peter Thiel is Ron Paul's Sugar Daddy Feb. 20, 2012

[RMorgan]

Hey mate,

I think it doesn´t even matter anymore, unfortunately.

Didn´t Mitt Romney win the GOP nomination yesterday?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...omination.html

It was all over the news here in Brazil.

Cheers,

Raf.

[aceninja]

it isn't official until The Republican Convention in August

[RMorgan]

Posted by aceninja (here)
it isn't official until The Republican Convention in August

Hey mate,

Thanks. I didn´t know that.

Anyway, the mainstream media here in Brazil is already promoting this as a fact.

Cheers,

Raf.

[Cartomancer]

It is a disgusting ploy that they are mis-stating in the lamestream media that Romney "won" the nomination. This is a perfect example of how they manipulate, twist, and lie about anything that may benefit them. Ron Paul scares the crap out of these people no matter who is contributing to his campaign. They are going to do everything they can to stop him from speaking at the convention. All's this proves is what a sham is all is anyway.

[RMorgan]

Posted by Cartomancer (here)
It is a disgusting ploy that they are mis-stating in the lamestream media that Romney "won" the nomination. This is a perfect example of how they manipulate, twist, and lie about anything that may benefit them. Ron Paul scares the crap out of these people no matter who is contributing to his campaign. They are going to do everything they can to stop him from speaking at the convention. All's this proves is what a sham is all is anyway.

I agree.

This is another bad, but already expected move from mainstream media.

Man, it was all over the TV news here yesterday.

Today it´s on the front pages of many of our most "important" newspapers.

Another prove that we can´t trust them.

Cheers,

Raf.

[we-R-one]

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by aceninja (here)
it isn't official until The Republican Convention in August

Hey mate,

Thanks. I didn´t know that.

Anyway, the mainstream media here in Brazil is already promoting this as a fact.

Cheers,

Raf.

Please tell me you're not following what MM says? C'mon Raf, I know you're smarter than that. Most likely you are just stating what's happening in your area..... Ron Paul utilized the Republican Party as strategy for more exposure. Even though he mostly likely won't win the GOP nomination due to fraud, it has served his cause and purpose quite well as he has awakened many which was the goal from the start.

[RMorgan]

Posted by we-R-one (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by aceninja (here)
it isn't official until The Republican Convention in August

Hey mate,

Thanks. I didn´t know that.

Anyway, the mainstream media here in Brazil is already promoting this as a fact.

Cheers,

Raf.

Please tell me you're not following what MM says? C'mon Raf, I know you're smarter than that. Most likely you are just stating what's happening in your area..... Ron Paul utilized the Republican Party as strategy for more exposure. Even though he mostly likely won't win the GOP nomination due to fraud, it has served his cause and purpose quite well as he has awakened many which was the goal from the start.

Hey mate,

No way!! I don´t follow these suckers for a long time!

I was just saying that they are reporting it as a fact.

Anyway, here´s a nice video about it:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kEk8aMRa5qk

Cheers,

Raf.

[we-R-one]

I figured that Raf, just teasing you, and giving you a bad time

[gripreaper]

As I understand the idea behind landownership as proposed by the Austrian school goes like "you own what you use". So a small group could only own all the land, when people would do it for them through corporations. People wouldn't have to do that. Why would I want to work for a corporation that exploits me and others, when I could legally own my own piece of land, maybe with likeminded people?

When it comes to money, I think a free-market monetary system is entirely possible inside the framework of the Austrian School, this was even formulated by Hayek. This means, people can simply choose, what they want to use a means of exchange and when a tiny minority has all the gold, people would naturally use something else most probably.

It is important to note, that the indictment of many figureheads of the elite is still on the table, they committed crimes and they must be held accountable for humanity to move on in decency. For that reason, I don't see how they could just slide into any new system and continue their criminal activity anyways.

The Austrian School is not completly fixed and not an absolute system anyways, so I guess Ron Paul does not have it as his bible and neither do I.

-------

Henry Makow: Let's be real about Ron Paul Dec. 4, 2011
The Atlantic Wire: Peter Thiel is Ron Paul's Sugar Daddy Feb. 20, 2012

So, the debate from the CEO of paypal, is still whether the Austrian school or the Keynesian school is better? When does the debate turn away from completely polarized and unbridled greed and capitalism, and unbridled socialism and control, to something new?

Hasn't the existing economic model failed?

[UnrealDreams]

Posted by christian (here)
Peter Thiel, founder of PayPal and member of the Bilderberg group, gave $2.6M to the superPac group connected to Ron Paul's campaign. Why?

There are now those, that argue, that the Austrian School of Economics, endorsed by Ron Paul, is a globalist fabrication, because it has been funded by the Rockefellers and that if that economic system would be implemented, the bankers would legally own all the land through their corporations and because they have all the gold, they'd own all the money and would then legally have all the power they want.

Now in my opinion this is either a misunderstanding or disinfo. I think this is supposed to create confusion, as Alex Jones often said: "The best thing the globalists could do to discredit Ron Paul would be to endorse him." I'd like to hear your opinions on that.

As I understand the idea behind landownership as proposed by the Austrian school goes like "you own what you use". So a small group could only own all the land, when people would do it for them through corporations. People wouldn't have to do that. Why would I want to work for a corporation that exploits me and others, when I could legally own my own piece of land, maybe with likeminded people?

When it comes to money, I think a free-market monetary system is entirely possible inside the framework of the Austrian School, this was even formulated by Hayek. This means, people can simply choose, what they want to use a means of exchange and when a tiny minority has all the gold, people would naturally use something else most probably.

It is important to note, that the indictment of many figureheads of the elite is still on the table, they committed crimes and they must be held accountable for humanity to move on in decency. For that reason, I don't see how they could just slide into any new system and continue their criminal activity anyways.

The Austrian School is not completly fixed and not an absolute system anyways, so I guess Ron Paul does not have it as his bible and neither do I.

-------

Henry Makow: Let's be real about Ron Paul Dec. 4, 2011
The Atlantic Wire: Peter Thiel is Ron Paul's Sugar Daddy Feb. 20, 2012

The Rockefellers fund massive amounts to universities worldwide so that they can control them. They funded all of the modern medical schools and the result is that in the last 100 years, homeopathy has become the fringe while allopathy is considered the norm. It never was that way before. Given free choice, people choose homeopathy overwhelmingly.

I'm not sure if I would read too much into Ron Paul endorsing this school.

[T Smith]

I would like to see the argument before I commit to an hard opinion, but my preliminary feeling is, it's disinfo. Many people are waking up to Austrian economics and this is exactly the type of disinfo money changers are starting to come up with to confuse people who are new to Austrian economics and haven't quite wrapped their brains around it.

To wit: Austrian economics are not condusive to securing monopolies, be it a currency monopoly, owning land, or what have you. First off, there would be no bankers to buy up everything under an Austrian system -- money, in an Austrian model, is simply an honest unit of exchange. In order to obtain something (say gold, or an ox, or an acre of land), you must give something of equal value, per the market laws of economics, thus creating equilibrium. With every accusition of value you must give back something sound, and of equal value, to the seller. How can one buy up all the land in the world or own all the gold in the world? You cannot own the "world" unless you give whomever you are accumulating it from something of equal value, say Mars or Venus....

This is hard for many people to wrap their minds around because we have been conditioned in a monopoly matrix where we exchange hours and hours of tears, blood and sweat, among other things of tangible value, for pieces of paper that are nothing but a decree of fiat from our banker overlords. This relationship does not exist under an Austrian model.

[christian]

Although Peter Thiel is now in the Bilderberg steering committee, I found interesting and somewhat positive information about him:

Thiel, who heads Confinity Inc., which is developing electronic payments systems, discussed the potential of the thriving international market in tradable commodities to replace unstable fiat currencies.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_repo.../techconf.html

He adresses the issue of a FIAT currency vs. a commodity backed currency, that's good.
-------

Peter Thiel was not amused. This trend toward PC gave him great discomfort. He believed that, in addition to criticizing Shakespeare, Chaucer and Aristotle, these protests were geared to restricting freedom of speech and expression, long treasured in the U.S. As a more consistent response to this atmosphere, Thiel founded the Stanford Review in 1987. Its motto: Fiat Lux (Latin for “Let there be light.”) A number of the Review’s crew ended up at PayPal with Thiel prior to the IPO. The Review not only still exists but is currently the main conservative newspaper on campus.

One of the former editors, David Sacks, proudly states that, “The Stanford Review stood for free speech, no speech code and the keeping of the great scholarly works in the curriculum. Sacks eventually joined Thiel at PayPal and helped bring it to preeminence. Another Stanford student, Rachel Maddow, now a radio show host, describes the Review as “mean spirited with a juvenile approach toward the consequences of their words and actions.” But, she concedes, “They were very good at generating an uproar,” which is exactly what Thiel wanted to do.

After graduating in 1989, Peter decided on law school at his alma mater. Still hanging out with his pal, Sacks, they became fans of Leo Strauss, the philosopher considered to be the father of neo-conservatism. Still annoyed with the changing Stanford curriculum, Thiel and Sacks authored a scalding essay in 1995, published in the Wall Street Journal, ridiculing Stanford’s policies. Stanford President Gerhard Casper and then-provost Condoleezza Rice were not amused. They wrote an angry response to the WSJ calling the piece a “cartoon, not a description, of our freshman curriculum.” Later that same year, the duo made headlines again with the publishing of “The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and the Political Intolerance on Campus.”
http://www.atrader.com/manager-profi...global-markets

Good buzzwords: Free speech, upsetting Condoleeza Rice...

This article also details how Thiel has made a fortune especially through PayPal and hedgefunds. Now when somebody is financially very successful, he becomes an object of interest of the cabal. Maybe making Thiel a member of Bilderberg's steering committee is meant to flatter and corrupt him. He's surely in a shark tank there.
-------

[...] the Great Recession, which began in 2008 and has no end in sight [...] a major reason for the bubble in real estate turned out to be the same as the reason for the bubble in technology: a mistaken but nearly universal background assumption about easy progress. Without fundamental gains in productivity (presumably driven by technology), real-estate values could not go up forever. Leverage is not a substitute for scientific progress. [...]

We need science and technology to dig us out of our deep economic and financial hole, even though most of us cannot separate science from superstition or technology from magic. In our hearts and minds, we know that desperate optimism will not save us. Progress is neither automatic nor mechanistic; it is rare. Indeed, the unique history of the West proves the exception to the rule that most human beings through the millennia have existed in a naturally brutal, unchanging, and impoverished state. But there is no law that the exceptional rise of the West must continue. So we could do worse than to inquire into the widely held opinion that America is on the wrong track (and has been for some time), to wonder whether Progress is not doing as well as advertised, and perhaps to take exceptional measures to arrest and reverse any decline. [...]

The fading of the true Green Revolution — which increased grain yields by 126 percent from 1950 to 1980, but has improved them by only 47 percent in the years since, barely keeping pace with global population growth — has encouraged another, more highly publicized “green revolution” of a more political and less certain character. We may embellish the 2011 Arab Spring as the hopeful by-product of the information age, but we should not downplay the primary role of runaway food prices and of the many desperate people who became more hungry than scared. [...]

If one believes the economic data, then one must reject the optimism of the scientific establishment. Indeed, if one shares the widely held view that the U.S. government may have understated the true rate of inflation — perhaps by ignoring the runaway inflation in government itself, notably in education and health care (where much higher spending has yielded no improvement in the former and only modest improvement in the latter) — then one may be inclined to take gold prices seriously and conclude that real incomes have fared even worse than the official data indicate. [...]

The most common name for a misplaced emphasis on macroeconomic policy is “Keynesianism.” Despite his brilliance, John Maynard Keynes was always a bit of a fraud, and there is always a bit of clever trickery in massive fiscal stimulus and the related printing of paper money. But we must acknowledge that this fraud strangely seemed to work for many decades. (The great scientific and technological tailwind of the 20th century powered many economically delusional ideas.) Even during the Great Depression of the 1930s, innovation expanded new and emerging fields as divergent as radio, movies, aeronautics, household appliances, polymer chemistry, and secondary oil recovery. In spite of their many mistakes, the New Dealers pushed technological innovation very hard.

The New Deal deficits, however misguided, were easily repaid by the growth of subsequent decades. During the Great Recession of the 2010s, by contrast, our policy leaders narrowly debate fiscal and monetary questions with much greater erudition, but have adopted a cargo-cult mentality with respect to the question of future innovation. As the years pass and the cargo fails to arrive, we eventually may doubt whether it will ever return. The age of monetary bubbles naturally ends in real austerity.

On the political right, we are seeing a quiet shift from the optimism of Jack Kemp to the pessimism of Ron Paul, from supply-side economics to the Tea Party, and from the idea that we can combine tax cuts with more spending to the idea that money is either hard or fake. [...]

The state can successfully push science; there is no sense denying it. The Manhattan Project and the Apollo program remind us of this possibility. Free markets may not fund as much basic research as needed. On the day after Hiroshima, the New York Times could with some reason pontificate about the superiority of centralized planning in matters scientific: “End result: An invention [the nuclear bomb] was given to the world in three years which it would have taken perhaps half a century to develop if we had to rely on prima donna research scientists who work alone.”

But in practice, we all sense that such gloating belongs to a very different time. Most of our political leaders are not engineers or scientists and do not listen to engineers or scientists. Today a letter from Einstein would get lost in the White House mail room, and the Manhattan Project would not even get started; it certainly could never be completed in three years. I am not aware of a single political leader in the U.S., either Democrat or Republican, who would cut health-care spending in order to free up money for biotechnology research — or, more generally, who would make serious cuts to the welfare state in order to free up serious money for major engineering projects. Robert Moses, the great builder of New York City in the 1950s and 1960s, or Oscar Niemeyer, the great architect of Brasilia, belong to a past when people still had concrete ideas about the future. Voters today prefer Victorian houses. Science fiction has collapsed as a literary genre. Men reached the moon in July 1969, and Woodstock began three weeks later. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that this was when the hippies took over the country, and when the true cultural war over Progress was lost.

Today’s aged hippies no longer understand that there is a difference between the election of a black president and the creation of cheap solar energy; in their minds, the movement towards greater civil rights parallels general progress everywhere. Because of these ideological conflations and commitments, the 1960s Progressive Left cannot ask whether things actually might be getting worse. I wonder whether the endless fake cultural wars around identity politics are the main reason we have been able to ignore the tech slowdown for so long.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...re-peter-thiel

Saying the cultural war was lost when the hippies took over is a pretty ignorant distortion in my eyes anyways, there's so much more to both the hippie movement and the non-existent technological progress, which is merely outsourced to black-ops, Thiel doesn't mention those for a second. When he says that a letter from Einstein would get lost in the White House, I'd rather think it would get lost officially but funneled elsewhere.

All this surely reveals anyways, that Peter Thiel follows societal evolution with a great interest and does not just sit back enjoying the fortune he made so far. And he seems very stern about technological progress, now when a Bilderberg member talks about that, I immediately think of merging with machines and transhumanism. His focus seems to be more on external technology than on internal development anyways, as his statements in this Business Insider interview suggest.

NC: So you're considered a libertarian and an objectivist, but you also fund artificial intelligence research aimed at creating AI that is friendly to humanity. Should an artificially intelligent beings be motivated by our interests as humans or their own self-interest?

PT: [An artificially intelligent computer] could be very good, it could be very bad, it could be somewhere in between. Certainly we would hope that it would be friendly to human beings. At the same time, I dont think you'd want to be known as one of the human beings that is against computers and makes a living being against computers. So probably at the margins it would be prudent not to make a name for yourself as a anti- technological human being just as these computers are coming onto the scene.

http://www.businessinsider.com/peter...#ixzz1wjR7sZNM

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

Ok let me first say that I like Ron Paul. Let me also say that I like both Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley. That being said I found this friendly debate to be extremely interesting.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-v40--NeCb4

[Fred Steeves]

Thanks AIJ, very interesting indeed! Although I don't like Tarpley's Statist ideals, he's a very learned man, and deserves respect. I also thought he handled himself very well, with Alex sounding like he had had a few stiff belts at the hotel lounge just prior to the interview. It seemed that at some point, someone close to Alex must have spoken up and advised something along the lines of: "Hey man, chill the f**k out would ya?"

Cheers,
Fred

[christian]

The argument revolves all around Ron Paul, so do you mind, if I incorporate this into this thread about Ron Paul?
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...aul-s-superPAC

Tarpley had a similar discussion with Adam Kokesh before:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9i7bzyKUBoU

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/...rpley-and.html

I concur with the commentors on activistpost, Tarpley's analysis is usually spot on, but his assessment of Ron Paul is tainted by his politicial bias.

[K626]

This is a very important vid. Highly recommended. I won't comment on it till later.

Peace

K

[spiritguide]

Tarpley has a different perspective and Alex has a hard time being objective. Like a kid hearing a rumor that there isn't an easter bunny. IMHO

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

Posted by christian (here)
The argument revolves all around Ron Paul, so do you mind, if I incorporate this into this thread about Ron Paul?
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...aul-s-superPAC

Tarpley had a similar discussion with Adam Kokesh before:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9i7bzyKUBoU

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/06/...rpley-and.html

I concur with the commentors on activistpost, Tarpley's analysis is usually spot on, but his assessment of Ron Paul is tainted by his politicial bias.

Don't mind at all Christian Thank you for posting this! Watching now...

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by AlternativeInfoJunkie (here)
Ok let me first say that I like Ron Paul. Let me also say that I like both Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley. That being said I found this friendly debate to be extremely interesting.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-v40--NeCb4

I should probably also add that I have a Ron Paul Revolution bumper sticker on my car.

[turiya]