Conservatives cozy with the establishment

The infiltration of conservative and paleo- libertarian circles by progressives continues apace, writes the paleo-libertarian blogger at MoreRight.net:

Why does a self-admitted liberal have a regular column at a website called The American Conservative, founded by Pat Buchanan, and his column is passed off as a conservative voice?”

It should make anyone wonder about several conservative pundits. Some of them seem to be more interested in their media presence than in supporting traditionalist positions.

Whether they are simply naive or actively working to undermine social conservatism is the question.

MoreRight.net continues:

” If you dig into the archives of this magazine, you see the same refrain again and again:

And what issue is more important than life? As a practical matter, conservatives would probably do better with voters by becoming less rigid on social issues where Americans are becoming more liberal. But they also stand to gain by doubling down on the issue that should matter most.

Translation: we ought to give up on social conservatism because no one will vote for it, let’s just focus on stopping abortion and forget the rest.”

The blogger gets a part of the picture right, although I think there are other reasons for someone to focus on abortion, as recently I have begun to.

He then points out evidence of conservative pandering:

“What else? Articles written by the left-libertarians from the Cato Institute, fawning over Jim Morrison (who was found dead in a bathtub from a heroin overdose), bizarre apologetics for Communist folk musician Pete Seeger, and other one-off oddball articles.”

Lila Rajiva:

I can point out even greater pandering and compromise on paleo-libertarian sites:

  • Using the same scatological and vulgar personal attacks that the left favors
  • Constantly mocking conservatives, right-wingers, and  Republicans (admittedly these aren’t all the same thing), without anywhere near equal time for their opposite numbers, thus doing the left’s work for it
  • Promoting  disinformation sources, such as  Robert Morrow and John Loftus.

MoreRight than traces some  direct links between traditionalists and neo-reactionaries with progressives.

Last year, I  came to the conclusion that Neo-reaction (also called the Dark Enlightenment)  was some kind of leftist/government ploy, but given the anti-Catholic slant of the term “Cathedral,” I also have to wonder why this blogger uses it.

Deep waters indeed….

Imagine the reaction if one were to term the establishment the “Synagogue” or the “Temple”?

Of course, it shouldn’t be fear of reprisal that stops someone from using either of those terms.  It should be the clear evidence that the establishment uses all sides of the debate against each other, Catholic and Jewish among them.

The people who are supposed to be standing up for traditionalists in the “new media” sphere are not-so-subtly stabbing them in the back, not just in their associations, but in their heartfelt beliefs.

In the DC/NYC new media milieu, credibility emanates directly from the center of the Cathedral, that is, The New York Times. Everyone is angling for a spot at the trough, including so-called “traditionalist” conservatives.

Lila:  I was cited by the New York Times a couple of times, a while back. I daresay could have cultivated that route had I the stomach for dissimulation needed for it. Frankly, I don’t.

[Josh] Barro is part of the “media/liberal thought elite,” which includes other mediocrities and Cathedral mouthpieces such as Ta-Nehisi Coates, Anil Dash, Dave Weigel, Matt Yglesias, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, and so on.

What of the connection with “paleo”-conservatives? Jonathan Coppage, associate editor of The American Conservative, is friendly with Barro. They’re both connected to Forbes writer and former Business Insider analyst Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, who acts clueless about the decline, calls himself a “former reactionary who now embraces the Enlightenment,” and tells us about how great economic and social equality are. They’re connected to Michael B. Dougherty, another “surf the decline” conservative who openly mocks reactionary politics and argues in favor of “pragmatic” policies such as embracing immigration amnesty.

All these guys are very friendly with left-libertarians like Jason Kuznicki, Cathy Reisenwitz, and Josiah Neeley, who are doing their best to turn movement libertarianism into a subdivision of Frankfurt School progressivism. They’re in turn connected to witch hunters for liberal purity such as Julian Sanchez, also at Cato, and open borders enthusiasts such as Bryan Caplan (Cato), Eli Dourado (Mercatus), and Dylan Matthews (Vox). The relationship between so-called “paleoconservatives” and these left-libertarians and progressives is far too close for comfort.”

 

In which I pat myself on the back for keeping out of it..

Over at Bob Wenzel’s entertaining blog, the libertarians are having it out with each other again – the thick libertarians and the thin.

(http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/which-political-party-is-best-for-america/question-2611731/?page=3&link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s)

First, Sheldon Richman took on Walter Block and Lew Rockwell.

He accused them of not supporting their arguments with evidence.

Bionic Mosquito zapped him.

The verdict from the gallery was a resounding win for the home-team.

Then it was Jeffrey Tucker’s turn to come out swinging against Thomas Aquinas,

who, being dead,  was ably defended by the learned David Gordon.

Next, N. Stephan Kinsella arm-wrestled with a minarchist and called him names like “loser,”

which is par for the course, when it comes to N. Stephan Kinsella.

I woman-fully restrained myself from throwing any sticks or stones, as part of my endless violated not-so-New Year’s resolution to “play nicer.”

[See, Mr. Tucker? I took your humanitarian advice to heart in spirit, even though I criticized it in letter.]

But I admit I missed drawing blood.

And I admit I enjoyed watching others draw blood:

http://johnkreng.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/review-of-bloodsport-1988/

But, honestly, I didn’t get much satisfaction from any of it.

A wee bit of Schadenfreude, maybe.

But, for a brutalist outcaste – a “hater” and a “bigot” –

….not bad at all.

Recommended reading: Jonathan Haidt: “Why Good People are Divided by Religion and Politics”

Brutalist Humanitarians Vol 3: The Pederast as Pedagogue

I formally apologize – nay, grovel – before STEVE HORWITZ

for his incorrect, hasty, and shoddy perception that I was intentionally attributing a review of Paul Goodman, a libertarian, to him, with the explicit purpose of “insinuating” that he was a pedophile apologist, which he claims is “insane.”

Since his remark was extraordinarily rude for a person in his position, I deleted it.

Since it was accurate as to confusion of identity, I have taken the essence of it and placed it above.

He also said I was a “shoddy researcher.” Weep.

How will I endure?

Well, in this post, there was certainly a mistake, but not anything crucial.

The misattribution of the quote doesn’t in the slightest bit deter from the central argument.

To be honest, though, I’m nonplussed.

There is nothing immoral or wrong about writing about Goodman’s homosexuality or his pederasty, so why should anyone get so upset – incorrectly – to be associated with that writing, especially when it’s critical of Goodman?

If I suggested anyone was a pedophile apologist, it was Goodman….and I didn’t even really do that. I cited people who documented he was a pederast.

Meanwhile, I found Horwitz’s phrasing interesting.

It’s exactly the opposite of the phrasing Bob Wenzel used about me (“Careful researcher”) at EPJ just yesterday, for analyzing Tucker’s piece with the brutalist metaphor. Hmm….

I also note that I wrote this blog post almost five days ago, but that Mr. Horwitz only posted this today, after Bob’s comment.

Apart from Goodman, the only person I could be said to have questioned (in the faintest way) was Charles Burris at Mises, for citing Goodman…but I didn’t even do that.

As for Horowitz, the author, I insinuated nothing about him, except to say that he was a Tuckerian libertarian. Is that hate speech now?

I didn’t even actually identify the author Horowitz with the BLHer Steve Horwitz.

For all anyone knows,  the author of the passage, Horowitz, who is a neo-functionalist, as Goodman was (look that up), might well be a Tuckerian libertarian, even if he doesn’t know it.

That was the point of my piece. Tucker’s term is typically leftist.

I actually wrote the author’s name correctly as STEVE HOROWITZ, when I originally read the piece.  Then I came back to my incomplete draft, in between reading stuff on the BLH site ( trying to figure out if they were Tuckerians or not), and saw the name spelled HORWITZ in one part (accidentally).

That made me wonder, so  I put down Tuckerian libertarian in the draft, thinking I would check back to find out if it was the BLHer of that name.

When I got back to the blog, I forgot that I’d set it aside to research and just published it, without checking, with the note still in brackets, as it was published.

Hasty, true. Over-worked, true. Too many fingers in too many pots, very true.

How to shoot down daily propaganda from all sides, with most people unwilling to get in the direct line of fire, without making a silly mistake?

But shoddy? Not really.

Insane, no more than Mr. Horwitz, and much less than this BLHer friend of his whose sock-puppet internet adventures as a female are described here.

In any case, Tuckerian libertarians (including the BLHers) would never consider homosexuality or pederasty (which is promoted with it) a negative.

So why would anyone be that upset because they were mistaken for an apologist for it, especially when the alleged apologia was NOT an apologia?

So one last time – the only thing I’m insinuating in this piece is that Tucker’s division is one-sided and that brutalism is found on both sides of the political and ideological divide, as Mr. Horwitz just proved.

We’re all human beings here.

So, I apologize for your hurt feelings, Mr. Horwitz, and I give my regards to you and to your friend, Mr. Tucker.

Tell him I’ve been waiting for his apology…..or the correction from his friends, for nearly two years now…

ORIGINAL POST

Charles Burris comments on left-libertarian Paul Goodman and his critique of compulsory education.

Pedagogy being an interest of mine, I began researching Goodman. I’d known only that he was an influential figure in the counter-culture and a prophetic social critic.

Turns out he was also – interestingly for a writer on education cited by a paleo-libertarian site –  a practising pederast:

“Goodman is now mainly remembered as a notable political activist on the pacifist Left in the 1960s and early 70s. Politically he described himself as an anarchist, sexually as pederast (Rossman, 1976, pp.87-92), and professionally as a “man of letters”. Less widely known is his role as a co-founder of Gestalt Therapy.

Born in New York City, he freely roamed the streets and public libraries of the city as a child (and later developed, from this, the radical concept of “the educative city”). He taught at the University of Chicago while he was taking his Ph.D., but fell in love with a student and was dismissed. He fathered a family by two common-law wives, and his early years were characterized by menial and teaching jobs taken to enable him to continue as a writer and to support his children. ……
The freedom with which he revealed, in print and in public, his homosexual life and loves (notably in a late essay, “The Politics of Being Queer” (1969)), proved to be one of the many important cultural springboards for the emerging gay liberation movement of the early 1970s. However, his own views ran counter to the modern construction of homosexuality. It was his opinion that it was pathological not to be able to make love to someone of the opposite sex, but that it was equally pathological “not to be able to experience homosexual pleasure.” Likewise, it was his view that sexual relationships between men and boys were natural, normal and healthy, and that they could lay the foundation for continuing friendship even after the sexuality is outgrown (since “sex play does not last long between males, as a rule”).(ibid, p.88)

In discussing his own sexual relationships with boys, he acknowledged that public opinion would condemn him, but countered that “what is really obscene is the way our society makes us feel shameful and like criminals for doing human things that we really need.” In diagnosing the problems of modern education, which even in his time was accused of killing the spirit of the youngsters and leaving them bereft of curiosity and creativity, he underlined that “a good pupil-teacher relationship inevitably has sexual overtones” and that acknowledgement and proper channeling of these tensions would lead to a better educational environment.”

A substantial portion of Goodman’s literary output was devoted to discussing his sexual proclivity in fictional form, thus, Martin, New York, 1933.

What’s even more interesting is that Goodman’s difficulty with the educational establishment was only partly due to its bureaucratic structure. It was mainly due to his habit of diddling, or trying to diddle,  his young charges. Indeed, that was the subject of an autobiographical novel he wrote three years after one of his three firings. Steve Horowitz reviews Goodman’s book, “Parent’s Day,”

“DESPITE Paul Goodman’s accomplishments as a writer and social critic, he has been best remembered as an educator. Yet Goodman hadano great success as a teacher. He never could get along well with the bureaucracies of large institutions, and though he had many teaching
jobs, they rarely lasted more than a year. Goodman’s positions were not renewed, usually because of his homosexual activities.

Goodman’s theories on education generally concerned children rather than college students. He was angry about the way the  American school system functioned to reduce a child’s individuality. Goodman was especially interested in questions about adolescent sexuality and school structure. The “most pressing issue in most of our homes,” he wrote A.S. Neill of Summerhill fame back in the early 1950s, was “the witnessing or not-witnessing (and participation or censoring) of children in the first years of the sexual intercourse of the adults.” Goodman believed that educators needed to help students with their sexual development. Ideas like this earned Goodman a reputation as a dangerous crank during the 1940s and 1950s. Neill considered Goodman a theorist, rather than a pragmatist, when it came to education. But Goodman had taught at Manumit, a progressive school in upstate New York, back in 1943. Goodman was fired from this job, again because of his homosexual activities. Parents’ Day is the story of Goodman’s experience at Manumit. It is a work of autobiographical fiction, as Goodman exaggerates what happens as he struggles to gain perspective. The homosexual relationship between teacher and student is bluntly stated. Goodman wrote the book three years after the fact as part of his Reichian self-analysis. He tries to understand his behavior, rather than justify it. Parents’ Day could not find a publisher during the 1940s because of its explicit homo-erotic content.

A friend printed up an edition of five hundred in 1951. It received only one review and has been unavail­able for many years. Black Sparrow Press, which has been reissuing much of Goodman’s self-published work, has recently made Parents’ Day available to a wide audience for the first time.

The book is often hilariously funny. The seriousness of the mem­ories and ideas discussed does not dampen the narrator’s enthusiasm.

His predicament (Why am I living/how do I get laid?) is only exacerbated by this constant self-questioning. He never finds any satisfactory answers, but after a while, just asking the questions brings him relief.

It’s like that joke with which Woody Allen begins Annie Hall : two large middle-aged Jewish women are eating dinner at a popular

Catskill resort hotel. One woman says to the other, “The food here is awful.” To which the other responds: “Yes, and such small portions.”

[Lila: Not surprising that Horowitz would bring up Woody Allen, since Goodman made a cameo appearance in Annie Hall and Allen’s resume also includes pederasty and pedophilic abuse, which it would be brutalist, I suppose, to mention.

It might also be brutalist to point out that Goodman endlessly cruised the waterfront for young males, even while going through two common-law wives and had a reputation for being callous to people – not exactly a preferred trait in an educator. Indeed, he was a poster-child for arrested development (he was, after all, effectively fatherless):

“He would, as the composer Ned Rorem tells it in the film, make “passes at literally everybody. I mean everybody—men and women and people’s mothers and the president of the university.”

He once shocked guests by French-kissing his dog.

Nathan Abrams in The Triple Exthnics lists Goodman, along with Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse, as the intellectual vanguard of the sexual revolution that normalized homosexuality and pornography in the US in a matter of a few decades:

“Goodman knows he cannot resolve his mixed feeling about his tenure at Manumit. He acted on his sincere desires, yet he hurt other people.

Still, Goodman isn’t sure if he would act any differently if the situation reoccurred. He is introspective, but non-judgmental.
What Goodman learned from teaching at Manumit, and his reflec­tions while writing this book, form the basis of his thought on young  adult education. In Parents’ Day, one can glimpse the human teacher inside the humanitarian educator with all his faults. As such, the book makes a powerful statement. Follow your impulses, Goodman says, but be prepared to suffer the consequences. That is the only moral choice one can make in this imperfect world.”

Here we see a core principle of  the politically correct libertarians – every choice is equally good and none can be judged. The only wrong is to find anything wrong.

The only brutes, to paraphrase Jeffrey Tucker, are those who condemn brutality.

Yet, what could be more brutal than a grown man, with ample outlet for his sexual proclivities, abusing the trust of parents to violate their children and then indoctrinate them with beliefs in direct opposition to their own?

A man who teaches young children that every impulse must be followed? A man who was incapable of controlling his own impulses, and more importantly, incapable of regretting them.

“His private journals, Rosenberg wrote, were a chronicle of hunger for sex, recognition, community, and transcendence.”

A man who could not ever escape from his hungers and his own self.

A defender of pedophilia:

“My own view, let me say, is that no sexual practices whatever, unless they are malicious or extremely guilt-ridden, do any harm to anybody, including children. Certainly far more harm is done by any attempts to repress, frighten, or denigrate.”

One of the trio (Marcuse and Reich were the other two) who sold the West on the gospel of sex.

A disappointed man, even in lust:

A historian trying to explain the emptiness of modern leftist thinking could do worse than start with Growing Up Absurd.

An arrogant men, obsessed with his own sexual prowess:

“Goodman was a hard guy to like. Acquaintances described him as arrogant, self-absorbed, and sexually unremitting. When he wasn’t coming on—to women and men (mostly men); old and young (mostly young); sailors, waiters, and college presidents—he was talking about it. “He was so goddamn proud of his prick,” Grace Paley notes, visibly unimpressed, in Lee’s film.”

If that is not brutalism, what is?

Goodman was, of course, much more than his sexual identity practices.

But clever theories and high-flown rhetoric aside, the liberty he  practiced – and espoused- conforms to the Jeffrey Tucker vision of “humanitarian” liberty, wherein those with the loudest lobbies determine which exercise of liberty is brutal and which humanitarian.

I guess children aren’t part of the humanity that can pay good money to propagandists to put lipstick on libertarians pigs.

Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble: Mt. Gox goes poof!

Mt Gox has gone bust.

Ahem.

We’ll take a quick bow (along with Gary North, Robert Wenzel, Bionic Mosquito, and several others).

We Bitcoin-deniers stood our ground in the face of relentless and shameless]pumping, supported by rent-a-libertarians, like the former chief editor of the Daily Reckoning, Joel Bowman and shameless other opportunists

[On rereading this, I think I want  soften my tone, since the anti-BTC’s have been proved by events.[

See the two MBP posts below:

BTC: My Comments at EPJ

Bitcoin: My Comment at EPJ and Block’s Reversal

See also the following anonymous comments at EPJ in December and November 2013:

My comments are anonymous, because I was worried that the elites might attack people who criticized BTC, just as they trashed Assange critics all over the net:

Comments at EPJ on December 3

 

  1. Anonymous (Lila )
  2. Stick with Gary North, Wenzel.

    Better the known devil than the unknown.

    And talking about unknown devils, who is this Paul Rosenberg from Cryptohippie?

    Who owns Cryptohippie?

    Might they have connections to TOR, Wikileaks, Assange, and/or the Internet billionaires (Zuckerberg, Brin, Thiel, Omidyar)? If so, can DARPA be far behind?

    How would we know since Bitcoin is so mysterious……

    In fact, how would we know if Bernanke himself wasn’t moonlighting as an “anti-Fed” bit-coiner?

    Answer is we wouldn’t.

    Also, what reason could there be for the inventor of an invention of this magnitude (purportedly) to coyly refrain from taking any credit or recognition?

    Another question, why does Julian Assange tout it?

    These are the things which must be investigated before anyone other than fools and gamblers will go near this scheme.

    Anonymous (Lila Rajiva)
  3. Maybe they gain something personally from promoting Bitcoins? Credibility with the hacker-anarchist world, for instance. Maybe even money. How do you know?

    It takes a big person to stick to his guns, even when peer pressure might suggest otherwise.

 


 

Comments at EPJ on December 12:

 

  1. Anonymous (Lila)
  2. @anonymous

    I don’t have time to refute step by step.
    Just the obvious points.

    You claim bitcoin allows you to transfer any amount of wealth anywhere in the world almost instantly and almost free.

    Actually, you can already do that with an ACH transfer (upto 10K), wire transfer ($25 for any sum) cash (as much as you can stuff undetected into your suitcase or cash cards. You can also do hawala.

    The limits in all these cases don’t arise from the medium, but from government restriction, which could be enforced much more thoroughly through BTC than by other means.

    Second. Bitcoins aren’t “free.” They require not only a very good computer, but an excellent internet connection, encryption of a very high order not only for the connection but for the hard drive.. and considerable technical knowledge to thwart the net-savvy people who swarm around bitcoin users.

    None of that is free or widely prevalent.

    In most countries, you don’t even have good enough internet.

    Plus, all of it can be snooped on and shut down.
    That is just one objection out of dozens I could raise.

    Reply

 

1.  Nov. 25, 2013 comments at EPJ

 

  1. Anonymous (Lila)
  2. Shame on anyone who is so credulous to believe this is the “free market” at work.
    Shame on anyone who supports this kind of elaborate con played by the very cartels that anarchists are supposedly fighting.

    Bitcoin is a Rothschild-backed intelligence-funded pump-and-dump. The purpose is to destabilize the dollar and provoke demand for a global single currency.

    It is the global elite-backed “controlled opposition,” using spokesmen from the CIA-infiltrated/ hard-money or “libertarian” community. The ones pitching it will make money as the proles rush in.

    It is easily tracked, easily gamed.
    More so than the dollar or gold.

    This massive swell of interest and pumping by all and sundry is a sure sign of intel involvement.

  3. People promoting this might as well have INTEL stamped on their forehead.
  4. Or FRAUD.

 

Anonymous (Lila)

 


 

 

@Philip, Anonymous, edward.

 

Intelligence and government are multi-layered, not unitary.

 

The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. Sometimes even the left hand doesn’t know. Just a finger or a nail knows.

 

Intelligence might take a while to understand the potential in something their scientists come up with. So it might take a year or two or more. Then they embrace it.

 

The MSM media is brain-washed one way – the obvious mainstream, Keynesian brainwashing.

 

The alternative media, including hard money people, are past the mainstream brainwashing, but they fall for the second-level brainwashing – they fall for Snowden, Assange, Hacktivism, Crypto-currency, Wikileaks, and all such black operations, meant to appeal to gullible, egoistic anti-govt types.

 

There are legions of agencies involved who profile dissent and come up with the red herrings that will be swallowed by the maximum number of fools and opportunists.

 

The economic dissenters trust their hard-money gurus, but that crowd is filled with two-bit cons who will fit their agenda to whatever the intelligence agencies tell them.

 

Please go back and look at when Bitcoin mania started and look at who has promoted it.

 

Be wise as serpents, my friends. Wenzel’s instincts are right. I hope he will not be dazzled by Mayer’s “expertise” and misled into supporting this con game.

 

As for sources. Do some research directly yourself and see what you find.

 

Reply

 

their ‘endgame’ …. .

 

 

Anonymous (Lila)

 

 

@Phil McKreviss, EndtheFed,

 

There are a few libertarian (rightist and leftist) blogs where Assange and Snowden have been deconstructed thoroughly. No need to reinvent the wheel here. Let your fingers take a walk and you will see that they are both mouthpieces for the global elites.

 

Some reliable sources you could read: Cottrell, Rappaport, Creighton, Rajiva, Madison…off the top of my head.

 

China – China is a COMMUNIST country, my friends. Goldman Sachs has a big presence there.

 

End-game is control – maximum control over your assets, your money, your movements, your writing, your thoughts – so they can harvest it all for themselves.

 

The elites would be gods…and for that, they need for you to be less than men. They need for you to be little BITS of a machine.

 

Read everything critically, inwardly, not in this trusting fashion.

 

Rest assured, when something shows up on the internet, with this much fanfare, the elites approve.

 

Freedom is hard.

 

It will not come without sacrificing some time, effort and along the way, some favorite delusions and consolations too.

 

Biggest delusion is to believe that there is any quick simple remedy whereby you get to make a ton of money quicker and liberate “the world” too.

All that is Grimms Fairy Tales in a special edition for libertarians.

Popular Libertarian Site Daily Bell Closes

A strange development. The Daily Bell is folding up. I wonder why? I used to comment there, I hope in ways that helped. The Bell regularly came up with useful insights, provided a forum for a lot of interesting commenters, and helped me, at least, understand the big picture than I’d done before. They lent their weight to deconstructing several important psy-ops. The more interesting question is whether they were themselves part of some kind of media operation.  Several sites have wondered about it. This will add to the speculation, since on the surface at least the Bell is doing well.

I’ve frequently applauded founder-editor Anthony Wile, an unusually courteous and decorous writer, by the standards of political blogging.

Still, I’ve always harbored suspicions about what the Bell really was all about, given its connections to Agora Inc.  I wonder if it’s paying the price for going beyond what’s acceptable, especially with the Snowden saga? Perhaps they crossed the line there.

Very strange.

“Well, it has been a great ride. Much has been accomplished at The Daily Bell and I, as founder and chief editor, have decided it is time to allow The Daily Bell to stand as is, as a historical testimony describing our current troubled and exciting times.

Content on TheDailyBell.com shall remain available as an educational and research tool. I and all the elves are humbled by what we have been able to contribute during this Internet Era, surely one of humanity’s most significant epochs.

The struggle for freedom, especially today, continues to be both a challenge and a promise. The Austrian-oriented Daily Bell has pioneered insights such as the concept of the Internet Reformation and contributed to the understanding of how globalists use fear-based scarcity promotions to frighten middle classes into accepting international solutions such as the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.

The Daily Bell helped expose the real agenda of the Soros-funded Occupy Wall Street movement, which apparently remains intent on generating what could be a French Revolution-style bloodbath aimed at the “one percent.” The Daily Bell has also relentlessly exposed the “public banking” promotion aimed at making quasi-private central banks the exclusive province of the state. The idea here is that globalists sponsoring this promotion, including the idea of a “living wage,” remain in charge of monopoly money creation behind the veil of the state. It provides further cover.

Finally, The Daily Bell regularly exposed the hoax of central banking itself, the idea that a group of good, gray men can efficiently fix the value and price of money and produce anything other than serial disasters and increasing ruin.

The work of many others has significantly contributed to these achievements. The Daily Bell has published nearly 3,000 News & Analysis reports, 229 in-depth interviews along with over 1,000 editorials from many of the free market’s leading voices. I am proud to have contributed several hundred editorials myself and am grateful to all who found the content worthy of carrying on their own sites. And we are thankful to those who have contributed editorials and participated in our interviews. Our newsfeed was carried by about 2,000 websites and, of course, untold numbers of readers have forwarded article links, further helping to disseminate the information provided by staff writers and these many contributors. The Daily Bell appreciates all of these actions and honors everyone contributing to the educational effort.

The Daily Bell generated a great readership and a loyal following. The site was at one time one of the 50,000 largest websites in the world and one of the 20,000 largest in the US. The memes that The Daily Bell has presented and elaborated on are historically valid and more pertinent than ever in this modern age.

And to all who found The Daily Bell a place of reason and civil discourse for important matters on the ‘Net, I hope you gained as much from visiting as I and the rest of The Daily Bell staff did as hosts.

~ Memento Mori ~

Anthony Wile

Chief Editor

Comment:

DB was an entertaining, interesting, and very helpful media initiative. Thanks to Wile for his honesty and courage.