Free trade is not freedom to trade

Article at ZeroHedge focuses on what some of us have been saying since 2003 or thereabouts – that things we believe in as good are taken up by parties and governments, given slants, are twisted, the nomenclature is altered in its meaning and ultimately prostituted in order to deliver an outcome.

This would seem obvious to readers of a site like this but to the great unwashed in general, it’s difficult to get the head around. When “fair” does not mean fair at all, when “equal” means one section of society then becomes newly oppressed, when it’s payback time for wrongs real and imagined rather than a better world, then people have been had.

When the PTB speak of fair trade, it is different to free trade and when they speak of free trade … well, let’s go to the quote:

Stoller – a prominent liberal – has scoured the Congressional Record to unearth hidden historical facts. For example, Stoller has previously shown that the U.S. government push for a “New World Order” is no wacky conspiracy theory, but extensively documented in the Congressional Record.

Of course it’s documented – I’ve quoted so many politicians and those who’ve influenced the politicians over the years and they’ve all said roughly the same thing over the years. They’re not even hiding their idea of a dystopic future. For goodness, sake, Quigley was perfectly open about it, as was Brzezinski. The issue is not what is and was – the issue is that no one would believe it and the messenger was dubbed rightwingnut or something else by the ignorant who never bothered to explore a bit.

Now, Stoller uses the Congressional Record to show that “free trade” pacts were always about weakening nation-states to promote rule by multinationals:

Political officials (liberal ones, actually) engaged in an actual campaign to get rid of countries with their pesky parochial interests, and have the whole world managed by global corporations. Yup, this actually was explicit in the 1960s, as opposed to today’s passive aggressive arguments which amount to the same thing.

Yes, yes and yes – got it in one.

When people – the ordinary voters – realize that the parties are puppets, that the leaders are on the take and beholden, that the whole preselection mechanism produces this sort of person at the helm, then there is some future.

Liberal internationalists, including people like Chase CEO David Rockefeller and former Undersecretary of State and an architect of 1960s American trade policies George Ball, began pressing for reductions in non-tariff barriers, which they perceived as the next set of trade impediments to pull down.

But the idea behind getting rid of these barriers wasn’t about free trade, it was about reorganizing the world so that corporations could manage resources for “the benefit of mankind”.

How many quotes in support of that contention do ordinary citizens out there actually need?

The elite at the top of the federal tree – that’s all it ever was, prostituting words people actually believe in, such as freedom. When civil rights groups on the left stage protest marches and chant freedom, they’re then ready, in the next breath, to cede that freedom to state initiatives, handing over the very power they’re marching for, in the stated objective by the liars above that it’s all about pursuing a more humane, compassionate world. Utter BS – every policy the federalist corporatists promote is for the enslavement of and for the further impoverishment and degradation of people.

When the political ingenues of the left can’t get it through their skulls that capitalism [as defined by them], free enterprise and free trade are three separate things, then not only is there no basis for debate but it plays right into the hands of the federalist corporate elites who themselves play down to the PC buzzwords.

And it’s the same on the right. Champions of free trade confuse it with free enterprise. The Adam Smith Institute, many of the Austrians who speak in theoretical terms – they equate free trade with people being free to trade.

As the quotes above show, it’s nothing like that in reality. It is an open mandate for monopoly because there is no regulatory or self-regulatory body which can rein these conglomerates in and the resultant monopoly is the antithesis of free enterprise. And at the head of these monopolies are the old families.

It’s never changed. Hamilton, lauded for establishing the financial framework of the United States, actually introduced the means of enslavement of the people of that land. And later – can it get any clearer than this?

Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr in 1913 [on the Fed]: “This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this act the invisible government by the monetary power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized … The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency Bill.”

Three years after signing the Federal Reserve Act into law, President Woodrow Wilson observed: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.

Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.

No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

And where did the push come from in the first place? From the sewers of Britain and Germany – look up the Warburg family or Milner and Co in this country. The bankers are but one part of the whole show. Monsanto aren’t bankers but they’re part of it. The UN aren’t bankers but they’re very much part of the push – see Agenda 21. They’re everywhere.

We rail at Common Purpose but who are they beholden to? Who set up Common Purpose? CP did not devise neuro-linguistic programming by itself but they used it. Who did devise it in the first place?

In America, trace back the dumbing down of education and you get back to Wundt and the Lincoln School. Go into the principals, the funders of that movement which has gone on to blight education in the English speaking west. Who devised the Delphi technique, for example?

Same names the whole way. Always the modern equivalent of the robber barons. And always the same innocuous sounding words and people promoted as heroes when they’re actually part of the destroyers. And always seeming to be for the people.

It really irritates when dumbos go around shouting “down with capitalism” because what they mean in effect, if not in intent, is let’s have state sponsored solutions such as Citizen’s Income, the NHS, Medicare, Land Value Tax, state provision in every area. And it’s not about helping the poor, it’s never been about that – it’s about bringing down the middle-class and working-class taxpayers – bleeding them dry.

It’s about endless and increasingly personal interference – latest over here is using licence plates.

The state is not our friend because it is deputizing for the PTB behind the scenes. Those of you reading this know all this already. The people who should be reading it never will. There it is.


4 comments for “Free trade is not freedom to trade

  1. James Strong
    February 23, 2014 at 6:43 pm

    Sorry James, but you need to think about the audience you want to reach.
    A lot of what you write is very good but your posts here are often way too long.
    And potentially important points are not explained.
    What is this — ‘latest over here is using licence plates’? I don’t know what you mean, and if I don’t how will anyone outside a very narrow circle?
    Do what you want on your blog, but really, have a think about what you want to achieve and if you are succeeding.

    • February 24, 2014 at 9:37 am

      The licence plate reference was that authorities will now use them to track down individuals and store other data alongside them – it’s the total information awarenes thing.

      As for readership, there is a disparate readership here, of different persuasions. so not everyone is going to agree with a point of view. In a similar way, there’s a place for short posts [see the one on the FCC up now] and a longer weekend read. This particular one now needed space to develop – it was intended as a read, rather than to spark discussion.

      The FCC one is for discussion as it’s about a central issue right now.

  2. February 24, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    “let’s have state sponsored solutions such as Citizen’s Income, the NHS, Medicare, Land Value Tax, state provision in every area”

    Woah, you can’t just chuck in LVT into a random list of “things you don’t like” like that. “The state” and “land ownership” are synonymous, you can’t have one without the other, in the absence of “the state” there is no land ownership and there are thus no land values. So LVT is the natural source of revenue for an organised society (if you prefer that term to “the state”). Income tax and so on are weird aberrations and should be got rid of.

    And Citizen’s Income is just everybody’s share of the LVT once “the state” has paid for a certain minimum of stuff (precise list to be argued), it’s a personal allowance against your LVT bill, meaning that the average or median household pays net nothing in LVT and receives net nothing in welfare.

    That’s the closest you’ll ever get to a “tax free” economy, bearing in mind that all land rent is just privately collected tax.

    • February 25, 2014 at 8:14 am

      Was hoping you might respond.

Comments are closed.