ALAN GREENSPAN VS. NAOMI KLEIN ON THE IRAQ WAR, BUSH'S TAX CUTS, ECONOMIC POPULISM, CRONY CAPITALISM AND MORE

Alan Greenspan gives a phony and deliberately misleading definition of Populism.

ALAN GREENSPAN: Well, remember what populist politics is. It's a very special brand of short-term focus, which invariably creates very difficult long-term problems. A goodly part of the book, as you know, is written about how populism has gripped, say, many Latin American countries to their detriment. And the term "populist politics" is essentially another way of saying short term versus longer term. And people who emphasize short-term benefits for long-term costs end up with very little in the way of economic growth and prosperity.
(Source: Democracy Now!)

That is not the definition of Populism. He's lying. Populism is for the people, as in government of, by, and for the people. Populism is against consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few greedy ones who pay off dupes to beat down the people who restrain themselves out of their good nature from tearing the rich apart limb from limb. Populists do not have a short-term focus. Jesus was a Populist under God and had an eternal vision. Greenspan is for the overlord system to which Jesus was diametrically opposed. It's one of the reasons they murdered him. Large scale movements to Populism have always been crushed by rabid capitalists long before the benefits of cooperation could show through. The capitalists have done this for the very reason that benefits would show through if cooperation were not violently crushed and economically cutoff from so-called open markets. Alan Greenspan is either ignorant or disingenuous. We say Greenspan is knowingly taking a deliberately hardhearted approach.

He is of the Hobbesian school of thought concerning human nature that the Real Liberal Christian Church rejects. He is saying that, because no nation has been rid of evil that it is inherent in human nature. We are saying that no nation has been completely rid of evil behavior not because it is generally human nature to be evil but because human beings have and are still being lied to (by a tiny, evil minority willing to do any amount of selfish evil for its own twisted sake) that they cannot overcome such behavior.

Greenspan takes the antichrist position against the position of the original Apostles of Christ who demonstrated that people can be of one heart and one soul and give and share everything with each other.

Greenspan went on to say the following:

...the type of globalized economy that I support has taken hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. It's created a standard of living throughout the world, which is unprecedented in history. And to assume that that is something we should be apologizing for, I find, is wholly inappropriate.

Here, Alan makes the fundamental error of not looking at the entire balance sheet. He doesn't see the liabilities. Look at global warming. Look at all the environmental and ecological problems directly caused by careless, capitalist industrialization, including that done under state-capitalism (Marxist Bolshevism). Look at all the torture and oppression under capitalist dictatorships.

Living a non industrial, rural life is not inherent poverty. Living on the land in harmony with the Earth is not inherent poverty. The progress people would have made had they not been subjected to greedy, selfish forces is not allowed to be considered under the capitalist dominated system.

The capitalist system has created more economic wealth in the last seven or eight years around the world. And as I said before, it's had huge effects in the developing world. Hundreds of millions of people have come out of poverty. And as a consequence of this, not on the basis of populist policies, but on the basis of policies which relate to markets, it strikes me that — you know, you can say all of the problems that exist in market economies — and in my book, you will find, I am very much aware of all of them in great detail.
The question you have to answer, however, is what system works better? And I think the evidence going back to the Enlightenment of the early part of the eighteenth century and all of the events that occurred with respect to what's happened to the world since then has demonstrated that this system is the only one that seems to work well. I mean, all forms of socialist structure, which you seem to be implicitly in favor of, have failed.

You see there that Greenspan's running scared that Capitalism is being exposed for the monster that it is. He is denying that communalism has worked exceptionally well for the Mennonites in the U.S. and so much so in Canada that the Canadian government at times felt compelled to disallow the Mennonites the basic right of acquiring more property out of the selfish fear by capitalists that the Mennonite system would out compete the greedy, which it has done and would more so if not constricted by so-called "let do" capitalist hypocrites.

Also, the kibbutzim in Israel fed that nation. The only reason the kibbutzim are on the downswing is due to laws put in place to constrict them for the sake of greedy capitalists who want excess for self rather than to share across-the-board.

...we've had regrettable problems throughout the world every time we've moved in the direction you're implying. The poverty level has gone up, not down.

The poverty level has only gone up where it has, not because of some inherent flaw in giving and sharing but rather because the capitalists have intentionally (with criminal malice aforethought) put the squeeze on from the outside.

Greenspan is a smokescreen artist for the greedy usurers who are basically nothing but huge, lazy, deceptive, con artist, leeches on the backs of the poor and growing lower class.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.