Friday, August 16, 2013

Julian Assange Hitting the Nail On It's Head...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


Julian Assange may very well be correct. However, his recent statement that "The only hope as far as electoral politics… presently, is the libertarian section of the Republican party,..." will undoubtedly displease the liberal progressives democratic party as well as the the republican party, perhaps especially the RINO's and the militaristic MIC wing of the GOP. Which of course gives one EVERY rational reason to believe Assange is absolutely RIGHT.



Campus Reform - “The only hope as far as electoral politics… presently, is the libertarian section of the Republican party,” said Assange, in response to a question about the recent swell of college-aged and youth-based support for libertarianism.

“The libertarian aspect of the Republican Party is presently the only useful political voice really in the U.S. Congress,” said Assange. “[I] am a big admirer of Ron Paul and Rand Paul for their very principled positions in the U.S. Congress on a number of issues.”

Assange, who was speaking in an online video forum, hosted by the transparency organization OurSay.org, also praised American Journalist Matt Drudge saying he is responsible for breaking down the “self-censorship” of the American mainstream media.

"Matt Drudge is a news media innovator... It is as a result of the self-censorship of the establishment press in the United States that gave Matt Drudge such a platform and so of course he should be applauded for breaking a lot of that censorship,” said Assange.

Assange is refreshing in his honesty and understanding of the fatal flaw present in not only the American political landscape but the politics of nations in the universal sense.

The story's completion.

Via: Memeorandum

21 comments:

  1. Wow, I didn't see that one coming....And did you hear what Bono from U2 said? He said that Africa could benefit far more from commerce and free market capitalism than it ever could from aid. Thinking outside the box liberalism is what I'm gonna call it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In this very important context, Assange is absolutely correct. The libertarian wing of the GOP, if it can keep building momentum, could work with the Democrats to reign in the security state. Already there's talk of Rand Paul being able to work with the likely incoming senator Cory Booker, a unique character I've been following for years, to just such ends, and these guys are rising big stars in their respective parties.

    The political impetus to reign in the security state must come from a coalition of the libertarian right and liberal to left-of-center left. But in the House and among state governments, it is the GOP that must be either converted or bypassed by the libertarians to make that happen. Liberals are just preaching to the choir. The libertarians must proselytize.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jersey said "Assange is absolutely correct. The libertarian wing of the GOP, if it can keep building momentum, could work with the Democrats to reign in the security state."

      They will have to work with a wing of the Democrats/liberals that is not on top, of course. The liberals, the Democratic Party of Pelosi and Obama, and of Clinton and those before him has advanced the security state and the MIC alongside the Republicans.

      I am not familiar with Booker, Jersey, not at all. I will go look him up...

      Delete
    2. I think you paint too broad a brush with "liberals." Liberals do not think of Obama and Clinton as pillars of liberalism. You conservatives might, but the left decidedly does not.

      JMJ

      Delete
  3. I must be getting more and more libertarian all the time, because the ol' Wiki-rapist there is making a lot of sense.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey D. Luthor, don't expect the Ducky, or any liberal/progressive really to grasp the truth about Rand's philosophy based solely on it's objective merits. Rand is highly misunderstood by most IMNJHO and it is possibly because as a fallible human (just like all of us) she had certain personal character flaws the progressives like to focus on as itnalows them to attack her character and evade an honest discussion of here beliefs. I simply gave up because there is no point in beating a dead horse.

    What I find so remarkably amazing is that aside from Rand's fierce advocacy for individualism over collectivism and a true unfettered free market capitalism over socialism/communism her philosophy is every bit as liberal and progressive as today's progressive civil libertarians.

    Rand herself had disdain for political parties in general, republicans and conservatives (who she saw as fascist leaning groups) specifically, and big government universally because she was born and lived her childhood years and early adult life in a hideous totalitarian communist collective which she grew to hate. One should read Rand within this context of her reality.

    Ideally Rand's individualism, advocacy of rational self interest, and belief in the virtue's of capitalism should be understood AND tempered with an understanding of the realities of our times, recognizing we are not the Soviet Union and that government does have a proper role in to play in society.

    Of course nobody knows for sure what Ayn Rand might say about the Tea Party and those who indeed want to "starve the beast" to the point there is no meat left on it's bones. Personally I rather think her rational self interest might cause her to believe some of these nuts are indeed that, nutty or worse, down right crazy.

    If you read deep enough you will find that Rand had issues with pure Libertarianism because she identified that in it's pure form it would result in chaos, social upheaval, and eventually anarchy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Overall, RN, it sounds like you take a very healthy approach to Ayn Rand, and consider her views in the context of her times, in the context of her times, and the context of her background.... all without any sort of making a Goddess or creator of holy books out of her.

      I have read some of the "worshippers" before, and they colored my views of Rand. Which as you might know were a lot more negative in the past.

      Delete
    2. Have you guys ever been to the Ayn Rand Institute web site? They have some very excellent videos and articles from people like Yaron Brook and John Allison that I highly recommend. Mises.org is another exceedingly good source (me, I'm personally far more of a Cato small l libertarian but I also enjoy being exposed to the gamut).

      Delete
    3. Many times Will. Both are on my link page.

      Rand however was not a libertarian.

      Delete
    4. Neither is/was. The younger Paul is a partisan Republican with some libertarian leanings.

      Delete
    5. Les, educated liberals who are familiar with Rand are not morons who who see her solely through the filter of her eccentricities. The problem with Rand is that she could not see the evolutionary human reality that is the collective aspects of society. Her world would be a animalish nightmare.

      JMJ

      Delete
    6. Feeling defensive are we?

      Her Eccentricities? JMJ, methinks you are.funny. As if eccentric is any more or less descriptive of Rand than, if I may say so... YOU.

      Well jmj, the society in which we are living today, is it not animalistic? Was Hitler's socialist/facist nationalism not animalistic? How about Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Franco, Mussolini, Pinochet, et all and the society they created? Were they not animalistic? How about Castro? Che Guevara? Indeed paragon's of collective virtue and intellectual fortitude. Right jmj?

      All of these, and more were "animalish", and I didn't even mention the animalish characteristics of Islamic societiy.

      Yet Rand's world, one of course that has never been tried, would be a animalish nightmare. All I can say is if you fail to understand Rand stood against the animalistic worlds created by the afore mentioned collectivist societies (our own American society included) you and your educated liberals completely miss the point(s) of Objectivism and the ethical morality of rational self interest.

      And Jersey, conservatives of the republican/libertarian mold today can not be viewed as adherents of Rand's philosophy any more than can liberals.

      As a side note, some of your intellectual liberal brethren think I created you and that you don't really exist. I actually take that as a compliment.

      Delete
    7. LOL! That's fantastic, man!

      I'm not saying that some polar opposite of Objectivism is any more ideal, Les. There is certainly something to be said for it, which is why many people feel strongly about it, and why many more people share some aspects of the philosophy. It just seems to most liberals that Rand is reflexively anti-collectivistic, and that's just not realistic, to us libs, anyway.

      JMJ

      Delete
  5. Jersey: Socialiiism maximizes the "animalistic" like nothing else, and the "collective" you refer to, more often than not, is merely the worst brutes of all maximizing their brutality upon everyone else.

    "Her world would be a animalish nightmare."

    Huh? That has been accomplished so many times by those whose views are the opposite of Rand's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Luthor, I'm not making some simplistic bipolar argument. When I refer to "collectivism" here, I'm referring to the plethora of different ways we are all collectivistic in our lives and governance. I don't think in the sorts of simplistic philosophical all-or-nothing or one-way-or-the-other terms you're using here. Humans are social animals and societalization is a collective endeavor. The specifics of how all that plays out and how we balance the individual and society are always up for debate, but to simply dismiss a FACT OF HUMAN NATURE is just silly.

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. Jersey: A view well enough stated.

      Delete
  6. Sorry, Jersey, Booker's just another cheap corporate pimp.

    He's nothing more than Chuck Schumer's cabana boy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ducky: Jersey's positive description of Booker made me look at him positively. Your attempted negative description (and knowing you use 'corporate' sometimes to mean anything of the people, public interest, non-state), has made me look at him even more positively.

      Delete
    2. I know, Ducky. I've been following him since he first started running against Sharpe James. He's a pretty standard New Democrat. I was just noting that he has happened to stake out some ground that could be good for the country, maybe.

      Luthor, remember that Booker does come from the same old Wall Street crowd that's been maintaining the economic status quo for a long time now. He's no champion of any change in that.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. Jersey: Then we probably agree that the Wall Street thing is a disappointment, in regards to Booker.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.