Sandy Hook Shooting - Gladio Connection?

The recent terrible events at Sandy Hook (Conneticut, USA) have caused the media, both mainstream and alternative, to go into overdrive.  Calls for gun control and allegations of "false flag" were published within hours of the event being reported.

Like the San Antonio shooting earlier this year, there do seem to be seem inconsistencies with the official story.  Below, I list points raised in an article published at the Veterans Today website; this may point to the tendency to want to see "conspiracy" in what may be a random event or it may raise valid questions which need answering.  I'll let you be the judge.

A coincidence linking both the San Antonio and Sandy Hook shootings has been published on the internet.  Both men accused of perpetrating the shootings have fathers who were due to give evidence to a US Senate enquiry into the LIBOR scandal.  Is there anything we can deduce from this seeming bizarre coincidence?  Again, I'll let you be the judge.

Having recently read Daniele Ganser's book, "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe", it struck me that there may be a link between these shootings and the activities of the groups involved in Operation Gladio.

In the 1980's, there were a series of attacks on premises such as supermarkets and restaurants by a group of men who came to be know as the "Brabant Killers" (named after the Brabant province of Belgium where the attacks took place.  The disturbing characteristic of the attacks was a willingness to shoot innocent people and an apparent lack of motive.  It seems that robbery was not the motive; if any money was taken, it was often found dumped.  Understandably, these seemingly random shootings terrified the local populace.

In later years, these killings have been linked to Gladio groups, active in many European countries following World War II, as reported in Ganser's seminal book on the subject.  The killings have also been linked to the so-called "Pink Ballets", the name tabloid newspapers in Belgium gave to alleged paedophile parties attended by members of Belgium's establishment and elite (real-estate magnate Jacques Fourez and his secretary Elise Dewit, who were killed by the Brabant killers in 1983, were supposed to have secret tapes of these parties).  The Dutroux Affair indicated that what was considered an "urban myth" in Belgium did have basis in truth.

Is it possible that a similar group is active within the USA, a group which works for shadowy intellignece and political interests, with their own reasons for keeping the population in fear and dependent on their increasingly draconian political masters?

You decide...

See below for inconsistencies in the Sandy Hook shooting reports (from Veterans Today)


Newtown Massacre…the MAJOR DISCREPANCIES LIST
 by Clare Kuehn

1) As yet, we have not seen any concrete evidence that any child died.

2) As yet, parents have not been allowed to see their children. (Photoshopped pictures do not count.)

3) As of now, I have seen only one unambiguous statement from a grieving parent (Robbie
Parker).

4) According to the official story, Adam Lanza was found with his older brother’s ID, and it was not stolen. However, older brother Ryan–who officials say is very cooperative–claims not to have even seen his brother since 2010. Where would Adam get this ID? And why does such use not qualify as a theft?

5) According to the official story, Adam Lanza was wearing a black outfit with a mask and bulletproof vest. Why would he want to hide his identity, and why would he wear a bulletproof vest, if he planned to kill himself?

6) The medical examiner asserts that all wounds were caused by a rifle or other long weapon, and police/FBI say that the school was littered with .223 (rifle) casings. But Adam Lanza was found dead in the school with only handguns–a rifle was found in the trunk of his car. But then he could not possibly have been firing the rifle, and could not have committed the murders. Who did?

7) According to the official story, the killing was tightly confined to two classrooms. But then why were so many children told to close their eyes while leaving the building?

8 ) Joanne Didonato, the principal’s secretary, called in sick on Friday–something she rarely does. So presumably, she must have been awfully ill. Yet she then felt well enough to give an interview. “Of all days,” she said, emphasizing the strange coincidence.

9) The hospital went into lockdown and cleared four trauma rooms, but received only three patients, two of them dead children(according to the official story) and one mildly wounded adult.

10) Why were there such persistent reports that Mrs. Lanza was a kindergarten teacher, and that she died at the school, when the new official story is that she was not connected to the school and was killed at home?

11) What happened to the report that Adam Lanza’s girlfriend and another friend were missing in New Jersey?

12) What happened to the woodsman in a black jacket and camo pants who was arrested and handcuffed outside the school? He actually shouted to parents, “It wasn’t me.” Who was he and what was he doing there?

13) What happened to the dark van or SUV that the police surrounded in the parking lot, or the maroon sedan with a blown-out back window they were on the lookout for?

14) The official story is that Nancy Lanza was a gun collector who obeyed the law. But since 20-year-olds are not permitted to buy guns or ammo or carry guns in Connecticut, why would she give her “autistic” son access to both guns and ammo?

15) Why were parents told on Friday that “if you haven’t been reunited with your child by now it’s already over”? Does anyone imagine that real parents of real children would simply say, “Okay, the show’s over, let’s go home now”?

16) Would real parents of real children really be satisfied with (possibly photoshopped) pictures of their children? Wouldn’t they demand to see their children one last time firsthand?

17) According to the official story, 28 people died but only 1 was wounded. The dead included 20 small, squirmy children–difficult targets even for professionals. How could Adam Lanza achieve such amazingly deadly accuracy, in such a short length of time?

18 ) A child asserts that he/she heard someone say, “Put your hands up,” followed by the reply, “Don’t shoot.” This indicates that the police took a suspect into custody inside the school. But if that was Adam Lanza, how did he kill himself after that point?

19) Another child asserts that he/she saw a man pinned down to the ground with handcuffs on. Again, this indicates that the police took a  into custody. If that was Adam Lanza, how did he then kill himself?

20) When Ryan Lanza was falsely identified as the shooter, who deleted his Facebook profile and created many others in his name?

21) Is it reasonable for a geeky 20-year-old to carry two pistols and hundreds of rounds of ammunition while wearing a bulletproof vest and a mask?

22) Why did the police say on Friday that they were going to leave the bodies rotting in the school until Sunday, then Saturday morning announce that they had spirited the bodies away in the middle of the night? Perhaps to ensure that the transport, if any, would go unrecorded on photos or video?

23) Why won’t police tell us where they found the Henry repeating rifle, the Enfield rifle, and the shotgun?

24) Did the school have one or more security cameras? What do they show?

25) Why did a police officer specifically mention, on radio, that “they’re coming at me through this wood,” followed by a fellow officer saying, “This is it”?

26) One officer in the school said, “We’ve got one suspect down.” Who was that? Down in this situation generally means in custody(on the ground and cuffed), not dead.

27) Why didn’t Adam’s uncle see anything out of the ordinary in Adam when the two saw each other in June?

28 ) Why is Adam Lanza reported to be a loner when a teenager said (oxymoronically), “[Lanza and his friends] always gathered alone in a corner in school”?

29) Why did police assign an individual state trooper to every grieving family, whether the family wants such “protection” or not?

30) Why are Ryan Lanza and his roommates still in custody, and why are the police pretending that it’s for their own benefit?

31) Is it a coincidence that Nancy Lanza’s brother is Kingston Police Officer James Champion, who lives next door to the former Lanza home?

32) Since the alleged shooter’s father is VP of GE Capital, and (like “Batman shooter” James Holmes’s father) was scheduled to testify at the Senate Hearings on the LIBOR scandal, is there a LIBOR connection to this event?


 

Nuking The Moon...

It seems that governments have been out of control for more years than we like to think.

Not content with ruining the economy (if low interest rates and printing money were the answer, wouldn't we have solved economic problems decades ago?), it is alleged that, during the cold war, the government of the US considered nuking the moon to intimidate the Russians.

Its just crazy enough to be true...

Perpetual War

"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."

The above quote comes from "The Art of War", attributed to Chinese general Sun Tzu.  According to Sacred Texts:

"Attributed to the legendary Chinese general, Sun Tzu, the Art of War also has a strong spiritual component. The work blends Taoism with the art of statecraft, applying concepts such as 'doing without doing' to the battlefield. Traditionally written during the Spring and Autumn period (722-481 BCE), others date it, based on historical and internal evidence, to the Warring States Period (403-221 BCE). Sun Tzu is traditionally identified with an historical figure who lived from 544-496 BCE, a general of the King of Wu. Since it first came to the attention of Westerners in the 19th century, the Art of War has influenced leaders from Napoleon to Norman Schwarzkopf. Mao tse Tung attributed it as a source of his thinking on guerilla warfare. The work is considered a masterpiece of military theory."

Written as it was some 2,500 years ago, contemporary political and military leaders, as well as citizens whose taxes pay for wars, would do well to consider the quote above.  It seems that the USA, along with the UK and other allies, have been engaged in conflict for decades.

Just looking at a list of American involvement in wars during the 20th century makes sobering reading:

      

World War I

Dates: 1914 - 1918 Where: The Atlantic Ocean and Europe How It Ended: Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919. American Battle Deaths: 53,402 (approx.)

 World War II

Dates: 1939 - 1945 Where: Europe, North Africa, Asia, Australia, and Pacific islands including Hawaii, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans How It Ended: Japan was the last Axis power to surrender on August 14, 1945, after the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki American Battle Deaths: 291,557 (approx.)

Korean War

Dates: 1950 - 1953 Where: North and South Korea How It Ended: The war reached a stalemate in June 1951. An armistice was finally reached on July 27, 1953. American Battle Deaths: 33,741 (approx.)

Vietnam War

Dates: 1954 - 1975 Where: Southeast Asia How It Ended: The U.S. withdrew after a ceasefire in 1973. American Battle Deaths: 47,424 (approx.)

Persian Gulf War

Dates: August 1990 - April 1991 Where: Iraq and Kuwait How It Ended: After a four-day ground war, an American-led coalition declared victory. A cease-fire agreement was signed on April 9, 1991. American Battle Deaths: 147 (approx.)

Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan

Dates: Oct. 7, 2001 (War begins with U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan, after the terrorist attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. Approximately 3,000 civilians and members of the military died as a result of the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.) - Conflict continues... Where: An effort to combat terrorism world-wide begins in Afghanistan. American Deaths in Afghanistan: more than 670 as of April 30, 2009

Iraq War

Dates: March 19, 2003 - Conflict continues... Where: Iraq American Deaths: more than 4,250 as of April 30, 2009

 Source: http://www.history.com/topics/memorial-day-timeline-of-americas-wars-20th-century

What is the true cost of such prolonged warfare?

In monetary terms, US wars since 2001 have cost almost $1,400,000,000,000 and is still rising (source here).

As for the Human cost, taking service men and women alone:

"One in five veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) - about 300,000 veterans to date. The social and economic costs of PTSD are immense. First-year treatment alone costs the government $8,300 per person, or more than $2 billion so far. And suicides among active-duty military personnel averaged one per day in 2012. Veterans now account for 20 percent of suicides in the US, with the youngest (24 and under) taking their lives at four times the rate for other veteran age groups."

Source: Huffington Post

Here is an interesting graphic showing the financial cost of war:

New Perspective on Cost of War

According to studies, the human cost of the Afghan war is 20,000 killed and 49,000 seriously injured.  In Iraq, 900,000 killed and 1,691,000 seriously injured.  We can never be sure if these figures are accurate.

Can we afford perpetual war?

What must we do to put an end to war and return to peace and prosperity?  

"We are all Socialists now..."

In recent years protests have erupted world-wide against Capitalism.  It is Capitalism that is blamed for the economic woes we face today.

Capitalism is not the problem.  It is the Capitalist system which has provided every material thing that we today take for granted.  It is the Capitalist system that has lifted Human Beings from a subsistence existence scratching a living from the land, to a standard of living hitherto only dreamed of. 

Socialism is the problem, Socialism masquerading as Capitalism.   

The text below is taken from Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness".  It explains clearly how Socialism is responsible for economic and social problems we face today.

What had once been an alleged ideal is now a ragged skeleton rattling like a
scarecrow in the wind over the whole world, but men lack the courage to
glance up and to discover the grinning skull under the bloody rags. That
skeleton is socialism.

Fifty years ago, there might have been some excuse (though not
justification) for the widespread belief that socialism is a political theory
motivated by benevolence and aimed at the achievement of men’s wellbeing.
Today, that belief can no longer be regarded as an innocent error. Socialism
has been tried on every continent of the globe. In the light of its
results, it is time to question the motives of socialism’s advocates.

The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual
property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of
use and disposal) is vested in “society as a whole,” i.e., in the collective,
with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the
government.

Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree
of socialization may be total, as in Russia—or partial, as in England.Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.

The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the
achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human brotherhood.
The results have been a terrifying failure—terrifying, that is, if one’s motive
is men’s welfare.

Instead of prosperity, socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or
collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialization has been
the degree of disaster. The consequences have varied accordingly.
England, once the freest and proudest nation of Europe, has been reduced
to the status of a second-rate power and is perishing slowly from hemophilia,
losing the best of her economic blood: the middle class and the professions.
The able, competent, productive, independent men are leaving by the
thousands, migrating to Canada or the United States, in search of freedom.
They are escaping from the reign of mediocrity, from the mawkish
poorhouse where, having sold their rights in exchange for free dentures, the
inmates are now whining that they’d rather be Red than dead.

 In more fully socialized countries, famine was the start, the insignia
announcing socialist rule—as in Soviet Russia, as in Red China, as in Cuba.
In those countries, socialism reduced the people to the unspeakable poverty
of the pre-industrial ages, to literal starvation, and has kept them on a
stagnant level of misery.

No, it is not “just temporary,” as socialism’s apologists have been
saying—for half a century. After forty-five years of government planning,
Russia is still unable to solve the problem of feeding her population.
As far as superior productivity and speed of economic progress are
concerned, the question of any comparisons between capitalism and
socialism has been answered once and for all—for any honest person—by
the present difference between West and East Berlin.

Instead of peace, socialism has introduced a new kind of gruesome lunacy
into international relations—the “cold war,” which is a state of chronic war
with undeclared periods of peace between wantonly sudden invasions—with
Russia seizing one-third of the globe, with socialist tribes and nations at one
another’s throats, with socialist India invading Goa, and communist China
invading socialist India.

An eloquent sign of the moral corruption of our age is the callous
complacency with which most of the socialists and their sympathizers, the
“liberals,” regard the atrocities perpetrated in socialistic countries and accept
rule by terror as a way of life—while posturing as advocates of “human
brotherhood.” In the 1930’s, they did protest against the atrocities of Nazi
Germany. But, apparently, it was not an issue of principle, but only the
protest of a rival gang fighting for the same territory—because we do not
hear their voices any longer.

In the name of “humanity,” they condone and accept the following: the
abolition of all freedom and all rights, the expropriation of all property,
executions without trial, torture chambers, slave-labor camps, the mass
slaughter of countless millions in Soviet Russia—and the bloody horror of
East Berlin, including the bullet-riddled bodies of fleeing children.
When one observes the nightmare of the desperate efforts made by
hundreds of thousands of people struggling to escape from the socialized
countries of Europe, to escape over barbed-wire fences, under machine-gun
fire—one can no longer believe that socialism, in any of its forms, is motivated
by benevolence and by the desire to achieve men’s welfare.

No man of authentic benevolence could evade or ignore so great a horror
on so vast a scale.

Socialism is not a movement of the people. It is a movement of the
intellectuals, originated, led and controlled by the intellectuals, carried by them out of their stuffy ivory towers into those bloody fields of practice
where they unite with their allies and executors: the thugs.

What, then, is the motive of such intellectuals? Power-lust. Power-lust—
as a manifestation of helplessness, of self-loathing and of the desire for the
unearned.

The desire for the unearned has two aspects: the unearned in matter and
the unearned in spirit. (By “spirit” I mean: man’s consciousness.) These two
aspects are necessarily inter-related, but a man’s desire may be focused predominantly
on one or the other. The desire for the unearned in spirit is the
more destructive of the two and the more corrupt. It is a desire for unearned
greatness; it is expressed (but not defined) by the foggy murk of the term
“prestige.”

The seekers of unearned material benefits are merely financial parasites,
moochers, looters or criminals, who are too limited in number and in mind to
be a threat to civilization, until and unless they are released and legalized by
the seekers of unearned greatness.

Unearned greatness is so unreal, so neurotic a concept that the wretch who
seeks it cannot identify it even to himself: to identify it, is to make it
impossible. He needs the irrational, undefinable slogans of altruism and
collectivism to give a semiplausible form to his nameless urge and anchor it
to reality—to support his own self-deception more than to deceive his
victims. “The public,” “the public interest,” “service to the public” are the
means, the tools, the swinging pendulums of the power-luster’s selfhypnosis.

Since there is no such entity as “the public,” since the public is merely a
number of individuals, any claimed or implied conflict of “the public
interest” with private interests means that the interests of some men are to be
sacrificed to the interests and wishes of others. Since the concept is so
conveniently undefinable, its use rests only on any given gang’s ability to
proclaim that “The public, c’est moi”—and to maintain the claim at the point
of a gun.

No such claim has ever been or can ever be maintained without the help
of a gun—that is, without physical force. But, on the other hand, without that
claim, gunmen would remain where they belong: in the underworld, and
would not rise to the councils of state to rule the destinies of nations.

There are two ways of claiming that “The public, c’est moi”: one is
practiced by the crude material parasite who clamors for government
handouts in the name of a “public” need and pockets what he has not earned;
the other is practiced by his leader, the spiritual parasite, who derives his
illusion of “greatness”—like a fence receiving stolen goods—from the power to dispose of that which he has not earned and from the mystic view
of himself as the embodied voice of “the public.”

Of the two, the material parasite is psychologically healthier and closer to
reality: at least, he eats or wears his loot. But the only source of satisfaction
open to the spiritual parasite, his only means to gain “prestige” (apart from
giving orders and spreading terror), is the most wasteful, useless and
meaningless activity of all: the building of public monuments.

Greatness is achieved by the productive effort of a man’s mind in the
pursuit of clearly defined, rational goals. But a delusion of grandeur can be
served only by the switching, undefinable chimera of a public monument—
which is presented as a munificent gift to the victims whose forced labor or
extorted money had paid for it—which is dedicated to the service of all and
none, owned by all and none, gaped at by all and enjoyed by none.

This is the ruler’s only way to appease his obsession: “prestige.”
Prestige—in whose eyes? In anyone’s. In the eyes of his tortured victims, of
the beggars in the streets of his kingdom, of the bootlickers at his court, of
the foreign tribes and their rulers beyond the borders. It is to impress all
those eyes—the eyes of everyone and no one—that the blood of generations
of subjects has been spilled and spent.

One may see, in certain biblical movies, a graphic image of the meaning
of public monument building: the building of the pyramids. Hordes of
starved, ragged, emaciated men straining the last effort of their inadequate
muscles at the inhuman task of pulling the ropes that drag large chunks of
stone, straining like tortured beasts of burden under the whips of overseers,
collapsing on the job and dying in the desert sands—that a dead Pharaoh
might lie in an imposingly senseless structure and thus gain eternal
“prestige” in the eyes of the unborn of future generations.
Temples and palaces are the only monuments left of mankind’s early
civilizations. They were created by the same means and at the same price—a
price not justified by the fact that primitive peoples undoubtedly believed,
while dying of starvation and exhaustion, that the “prestige” of their tribe,
their rulers or their gods was of value to them somehow.

Rome fell, bankrupted by statist controls and taxation, while its emperors
were building coliseums. Louis XIV of France taxed his people into a state
of indigence, while he built the palace of Versailles, for his contemporary
monarchs to envy and for modern tourists to visit. The marble-lined Moscow
subway, built by the unpaid “volunteer” labor of Russian workers, including
women, is a public monument, and so is the Czarist-like luxury of the
champagne-and-caviar receptions at the Soviet embassies, which is needed—while the people stand in line for inadequate food rations—to
“maintain the prestige of the Soviet Union.”

The great distinction of the United States of America, up to the last few
decades, was the modesty of its public monuments. Such monuments as did
exist were genuine: they were not erected for “prestige,” but were functional
structures that had housed events of great historical importance. If you have
seen the austere simplicity of Independence Hall, you have seen the
difference between authentic grandeur and the pyramids of “public-spirited”
prestige-seekers.

In America, human effort and material resources were not expropriated
for public monuments and public projects, but were spent on the progress of
the private, personal, individual well-being of individual citizens. America’s
greatness lies in the fact that her actual monuments are not public.

The skyline of New York is a monument of a splendor that no pyramids
or palaces will ever equal or approach. But America’s skyscrapers were not
built by public funds nor for a public purpose: they were built by the energy,
initiative and wealth of private individuals for personal profit. And, instead
of impoverishing the people, these skyscrapers, as they rose higher and
higher, kept raising the people’s standard of living—including the
inhabitants of the slums, who lead a life of luxury compared to the life of an
ancient Egyptian slave or of a modern Soviet Socialist worker.

Such is the difference—both in theory and practice—between capitalism
and socialism.

It is impossible to compute the human suffering, degradation, deprivation
and horror that went to pay for a single, much-touted skyscraper of Moscow,
or for the Soviet factories or mines or dams, or for any part of their loot-andblood-
supported “industrialization.” What we do know, however, is that
forty-five years is a long time: it is the span of two generations; we do know
that, in the name of a promised abundance, two generations of human beings
have lived and died in subhuman poverty; and we do know that today’s
advocates of socialism are not deterred by a fact of this kind.

Whatever motive they might assert, benevolence is one they have long
since lost the right to claim.

The ideology of socialization (in a neo-fascist form) is now floating, by
default, through the vacuum of our intellectual and cultural atmosphere.
Observe how often we are asked for undefined “sacrifices” to unspecified
purposes. Observe how often the present administration is invoking “the
public interest.” Observe what prominence the issue of international prestige
has suddenly acquired and what grotesquely suicidal policies are justified by
references to matters of “prestige.” Observe that during the recent Cuban crisis—when the factual issue concerned nuclear missiles and nuclear war—
our diplomats and commentators found it proper seriously to weigh such
things as the “prestige,” the personal feelings and the “face-saving” of the
sundry socialist rulers involved.

There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical
results of socialism—and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny.
Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy—that is, a system of
absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all comers, by
any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug.
When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature.
Remember that there is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus
“property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since
material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and
are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of
his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn
men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to
“redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat
human beings as chattel.

When you consider the global devastation perpetrated by socialism, the
sea of blood and the millions of victims, remember that they were sacrificed,
not for “the good of mankind” nor for any “noble ideal,” but for the festering
vanity of some scared brute or some pretentious mediocrity who craved a
mantle of unearned “greatness”—and that the monument to socialism is a
pyramid of public factories, public theaters and public parks, erected on a
foundation of human corpses, with the figure of the ruler posturing on top,
beating his chest and screaming his plea for “prestige” to the starless void.

Free Investment Advice...

Where should one invest money in these uncertain economic times?  Low interest rates make traditional saving seemingly pointless (thus making future prosperity much less likely), the stock exchange carries more risk than most people are comfortable with and gold and silver are, well, gold and silver!

Let me make it clear that I am not qualified to give investment advice!

The article published here which I reproduce below encourages you to invest some money in becoming a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.  Why should you do that?  Well, in my opinion orgainsations such as this, by educating the world back to sound economics and money, free market policies and Libertarian ethics, are the best hope that our future will be peaceful and prosperous instead of fearful and unpropitious (which I've just found out is the opposite of prosperous!). 

Let me give you an example of the value Mises offers.  For just $50 (that's £31 to my British readers), you can become a member for a year and receive "The Free Market", a monthly journal that interprets current policy and events in light of Austrian theory and free-market policy.  Remember: Austrian economics advocates such as Ron Paul predicted the Credit Crunch years before it happened!

Let me give you another example: for just $59 (£37) students of the Mises Online Academy are currently studying a 5 week course on the Economics of the Great Depression including 5 weekly lectures (recorded so they can be watched at your leisure), all reading materials (available online), graded quizzes and graded certification at the end.  Okay, so you can't put letters after your name if you pass but where can you get all that knowledge for so little?

So, please do consider giving a little to organisations that are working to promote prosperity, peace and liberty for you and your family.  Unlike most donations you'll make in your life, this one will give real value and truly go to a good cause...your prosperity and well being!

Enjoy...

    
I have been working at the Ludwig von Mises Institute as a senior fellow for the last ten years. I answer economic questions from students, Mises Institute members, and the media. I also work in all the Institute education and scholarly programs and do research. It is probably the best job in the world.

We have teaching programs that benefit high-school students, homeschool students, college students, graduate students, instructors, and professors, as well as the general public. These programs are effective because they are well crafted, time tested, and the staff is incredibly efficient and frugal in terms of execution.

My job is to lecture and sometimes to serve as master of ceremonies, so each and every one of these events is a real nail-biter for me. They are all so important. However, they always seem to turn out fantastically. The key is that we have the best speakers talking about the most important issues of the day to people, mostly students, who see that learning Austrian economics is vitally important to them.

That was not always the case. When I came to Auburn University to go to graduate school in 1982, I was told that there were probably only eight to ten graduate students interested in Austrian economics in the entire world. One of my professors even told me that there was no longer an Austrian School, there were only a couple of Austrians teaching in universities that offered a PhD, and that the Austrian School was just a fact of history, with no future.

Things were pretty miserable that first year. I entertained thoughts of dropping out and getting a job. Then toward the end of my second semester Professor Roger Garrison invited me into his office. He told me that Lew Rockwell was moving the Ludwig von Mises Institute to Auburn University. He said that Lew was going to publish newsletters, journals, and books and that he was going to invite all the leading Austrian economists to come to Auburn to lecture.

I had never heard of Lew Rockwell or the Mises Institute before that point in time, but I realized right away that things would be better. Next Professor Garrison told me that I would probably receive funding for my studies at Auburn University from the Mises Institute. Given Garrison's reputation for pulling people's legs, I naturally started to get suspicious, but he assured me that it was all true.

After leaving his office I was a bit dumbfounded, but I soon realized that I might be as close as I ever would be to an event that might change history. Back then, learning anything about Austrian economics was incredibly difficult, but I was convinced that Austrian economics was the solution to our problems. Having grown up in the 1970s, the list of problems was long.

Nixon had taken us off the gold standard and imposed wage and price controls. Our economy was experiencing high unemployment and high inflation. There had been waiting lines for gasoline. The country was decaying, and we were told that the Soviet Union was the wave of the future. My last two years in college could best be described as an economic depression.

With all that bad experience and with the country at its lowest point, I suddenly found myself magically turned into a raging optimist by Lew Rockwell. I have always sided with the underdog, and this was the biggest underdog situation since David and Goliath. Lew, Mardi, and Pat were stationed in small quarters with nothing to assist them but an electric typewriter and two graduate students to stuff envelopes. It did not appear that the entire Keynesian-socialist state had much to worry about.

Indeed, it's been nothing but a steep uphill battle. The distance yet to travel seems enormous. There have been difficult times and the state is bigger than ever. However, my optimism has never wavered and has indeed only increased. Austrian economics is a message that the establishment now has to deal with.

We are still the smallest school of economics, but we are the fastest growing. We are one of the oldest schools of economics, but the average age of Austrian economists continues to decrease. We still work on the fringe of the profession, but our work is having an ever-bigger impact in the real world. We have the growth, the youth, and the impact. Much of this success is the result of Lew Rockwell building an institutional foundation for Austrian economics to thrive.

Individual professors can do fine work, but putting together large instructional conferences is beyond their means. Lew has also made it possible to publish or to bring back into publication books that were too radical for other publication outlets. Generally put, the Mises Institute is the hub network through which the Austrian School grows in size and impact. More than 20 other Mises Institute–like organizations have been established in various countries, most of which are modeled after and inspired by Lew's design.

As an economist, many people ask me where they should invest their money. My response is that if you care about the future, if you care about the free society, then the best place for your money is the Ludwig von Mises Institute. We have had 30 years of growth and increasing impact thanks to Lew, the ideas of Mises and Rothbard, and to you, the members of the Mises Institute.

Frankly, there are few people who could have anticipated this success. I remember talking to fellow graduate students in the 1980s at the Mises University conference. Someone wondered aloud, "How many more years do you think they will hold the Mises University before everyone who wants to has already attended one?" Well, it doesn't look like we are stopping anytime soon. Last summer we were at full capacity, with four times as many people watching live on the Internet.

Having seen programs like Mises University and the Summer Fellows Program in person, I can tell you that they change people's lives. Of course these programs instill knowledge, but more importantly attendees gain a better grasp of reality that only Austrian economics can provide. In addition, with the state fouling up everything it touches, creating chaos everywhere, attendees come away from our programs with a newfound optimism and new zeal to learn as much as they can.

As a donor, the Ludwig von Mises Institute has always been my biggest charity. I know it is easy to feel helpless against expanding evils of the state, but I can tell you that knowing that my money is going to the Mises Institute programs has always provided me with a great deal of satisfaction. We share the right ideas, and the history of man has shown that the power of ideas is all that really matters.

Help us take down Goliath. Be David. Donate today.

Mark Thornton is a senior resident fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and is the book review editor for the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He is the author of The Economics of Prohibition, coauthor of Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, and the editor of The Quotable Mises, The Bastiat Collection, and An Essay on Economic Theory. Send him mail. See Mark Thornton's article archives.
You can subscribe to future articles by Mark Thornton via this RSS feed.
Copyright © 2012 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided full credit is given.

Does the UK have a "Ron Paul"...?

I was musing today whether we here in the UK have our own "Ron Paul", struggling to protect Libertarian principles such as limited government, civil liberties and free markets.  The nearest I have found so far is Douglas Carswell, the MP for Clacton, a constituency within 20 miles of me.

Now, I'm not sure Carswell has the Libertarian credentials of Ron Paul, but I did like this article about how the internet will enable us to live without Big Government.  Of course, it will also need a radical change in our individual thinking; away from always looking for someone to blame or to pick up the pieces when things in our lives go wrong, to facing up to reality with personal responsibility and initiative.

Please do comment if you find other examples of the "Ron Paul Spirit" within UK political life...     

Discrimination - A Symptom of Our Time

I have always been against discrimination.  By this, I mean that I am against a legal requirement to favour one group of people over another in your economic life.  I don't mean that I am against the right to do business with or associate with who you so desire.

To use an example, whatever I think of a hotel owner who refuses to admit homosexual customers (and I know I am risking a lynching here!), I will always defend the right of a business owner to do business with whosoever he/she chooses.  This is the principle of voluntary, enforceable contract.  Your business may not want to do business with people who, like me, wear spectacles but, much as I dislike it, I support your right to contract with whosoever you choose.  In a free market, I'll simply use another vendor who will serve me. 

   
The government/state uses discrimination in its efforts to interfere in the lives of ordinary people.  In the US, Obama is currently crusading to raise the pay of women who, he claims, earn 23c per hour less than their male counterparts.  Apart from the fact the argument does not stand up to examination, this article explains rather well why this type of interference in the market actually harms women's employment prospects.

In the UK, there is a raft of legislation that prevents employers practicing discrimination when recruiting new staff.  However, there are plans in the UK to offer ex-service personnel that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan free tuition fees to study for a degree and a £9,000 bursary to train as a teacher (all at tax payers expense, of course).  This is so-called "positive discrimination", illegal for you and I to practice but perfectly okay for the government.

But on a more lighthearted note...