‘Journalists’ Shill for the State
by Scott Lazarowitz: How
Statism Is a Sickness, and Not Just a Destructive Political System
It’s bad enough
that there might have been some hanky-panky
going on regarding the vote count at the Iowa Straw Poll this week,
in which Ron Paul received 4,671 votes to Michele Bachmann’s 4,823,
a difference of just 152 votes. But to see one national media outlet
after another completely
ignoring Dr. Paul’s virtual tie for the #1 spot, and others
who continue to dismiss Paul as "fringe," despite Paul’s
being the most mainstream and commonsensical of all the candidates,
for the State do not see how obvious they are now. And the shills
aren’t just the left-biased news media, but on the right as well.
In his loving devotion to the State, Rush Limbaugh said,
regarding the GOP’s giving Ron Paul any actual attention, "This
is nuts on parade."
Mr. Limbaugh? And whose "Operation Chaos" scheme
was it that helped give us the tyrannical President Obama?
I dare any
of the Iowa or national news reporters to interview people on the
street and ask if they were of the 4,671 people who voted for Ron
Paul, and, if so, ask them why they voted for Paul. You will
find answers not in the "fringe," or in the land of ignorance
and fantasy as with supporters of some of those other candidates.
No, you will find people who believe in and understand the ideas
of freedom and peace, and who want there to be a free and prosperous
America for their future generations.
So many Americans
now have been cradled by Big Daddy Government. Economically and
culturally Americans have become infantilized, and their coma-like
passivity is being disturbed by this Ron Paul person, who dares
to advocate independence, and that people grow up and be responsible
for their lives and stop being babies.
The idea of
the fiat money way of life, the use of value-less paper as the sole
government-mandated medium of exchange, has been so ingrained, its
century-long status quo being challenged makes people very uncomfortable.
Ron Paul has been exposing the instability of the whole system,
and that frightens people.
than deal with reality as Paul suggests, the pundits and the government
groupies of mainstream news would prefer to just continue sucking
their thumbs and hope for some magical cure, as the Limbaugh-Romney-Obama-Krugman
statists hope for.
who snub those who advocate a challenge to the status quo and a
challenge to government-controlled money and banking, government-controlled
medicine, and a challenge to the U.S. government’s immoral and bankrupting
aggression – aggressions that do nothing but provoke foreigners
to act against us – the people who close the door to the challenger
and keep it open for the statists, despite all the destruction the
State has wrought, is further confirmation of my assertion that
is a sickness.
But why do
we – the people who just want to live our lives and be left alone,
and who mind our own business and do not support acts of aggression
against others – why do we have to suffer at the hands of these
statists? Ron Paul is advocating for our freedom and independence,
that we have a right to live our lives, without aggression and intrusions
into our lives and businesses by our neighbors and by the government.
We have a right to trade freely with others without Big Daddy Government’s
we have a right to travel freely without being cancer-scanned and
groped by sickos or asked to show our papers, and we have a right
to earn a living without being harassed and having our labor enslaved
by the State.
The media act
as though that’s too much for us to ask and too much for Ron Paul
to advocate, so the media babyishly snub him and his unapologetic
message of freedom and peace.
Paul wants to remove the government’s monopoly in money production
and distribution, allow for competition in currencies, and have
money that is backed by something of actual value, like gold and
silver. Dr. Paul understands that paper
money leads to tyranny. Paul wants to undo the current institutionalized
irresponsibility of letting banks engage in risky investments and
not being held accountable, that allows the banks to get bailed
out by the taxpayers and by future generations via the government’s
perpetual debt machine.
that GM should have been made to go bankrupt. All businesses
that are run irresponsibly or unprofitably need to restructure themselves
or close, including
banks as well. The problem with "Too Big To Fail"
is that the whole banking and monetary system is a government-corporate
cartel that protects the top bankers from accountability, and restricts
entrepreneurs’ right of free entry into the field.
We had much
more freedom, and much more prosperity, growth and progress in the
years prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve. With freedom
there is prosperity. In total contrast, in the past century of government
usurpations and intrusions, we have had stagflation, wars of aggression,
corporatism, and now the inevitable collapse of the system, a collapse
that Paul wants to avoid.
these ideas apparently are too much for our news media government
flunkies. As the State has grown larger and larger by each generation,
the news media, the intellectuals and academics have shrunk in their
capacity toward intellectual curiosity, discovery and searching
for the truth. The State and its compulsory powers tend to stifle
questioning and challenging of its authority, and its power has
an allure to it that seems to have been just too tempting for the
journalistic elites to resist.
In his article,
Natural Elites, Intellectuals,
and the State, economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe noted how the
change occurred within intellectuals from being more independent
to being State apologists:
If one donor
or sponsor no longer supported (intellectuals), many others existed
who would happily fill the gap. Indeed, intellectual and cultural
life flourished the most, and the independence of intellectuals
was the greatest, where the position of the king or the central
government was relatively weak and that of the natural elites
had remained relatively strong.
change in the relationship between the state, natural elites,
and intellectuals only occurred with the transition from monarchical
to democratic rule. It was the inflated price of justice and the
perversions of ancient law by kings as monopolistic judges and
peacekeepers that motivated the historical opposition against
monarchy. But confusion as to the causes of this phenomenon prevailed.
There were those who recognized correctly that the problem was
with monopoly, not with elites or nobility. However, they were
far outnumbered by those who erroneously blamed the elitist character
of the ruler for the problem, and who advocated maintaining the
monopoly of law and law enforcement and merely replacing the king
and the highly visible royal pomp with the "people" and the presumed
decency of the "common man." …
of the commons" was created. Everyone, not just the king, was
now entitled to try to grab everyone else's private property.
The consequences were more government exploitation (taxation);
the deterioration of law to the point where the idea of a body
of universal and immutable principles of justice disappeared and
was replaced by the idea of law as legislation… and an increase
in the social rate of time preference (increased present-orientation)…
natural elites were being destroyed, intellectuals assumed a more
prominent and powerful position in society. Indeed, to a large
extent they have achieved their goal and have become the ruling
class, controlling the state and functioning as monopolistic judge…
Now, this is
not to suggest that people such as Rush Limbaugh, Chris Wallace
Crowley are "intellectuals," but they are amongst
the so-called news "journalists" of the day, which is
part of the crowd of news and pundits, academia, the professional
economists and those in pop culture who shill for the State and
its constant expanded power over the infantilized lives of the people.
such as Ron Paul says he wants the people to have their freedom
– that is, freedom from the State’s reaching into their private
personal and economic lives – and who actually speaks in terms of
morality (e.g. it’s immoral to start wars of aggression against
other countries who were of no threat to us), and if Ron Paul’s
proposals result in shrinking the State’s size and power,
that seems to be a huge threat to the thumb-sucking apologists
of the State. Certainly more than any threat from government’s
destroying the economy, forcing future generations into debt slavery,
provoking foreigners to retaliate against us, or from the government’s
own police state.
As Dr. Paul
"We are trying to reverse 100 years of history, the change
from a republic to an empire…" Apparently, Paul agrees with
Murray Rothbard, who called
for an outright repeal of the 20th Century:
Who would want to repeal the 20th century, the century of horror,
the century of collectivism, the century of mass destruction and
genocide, who would want to repeal that! Well, we propose to do
inspiration of the death of the Soviet Union before us, we now
know that it can be done. We shall break the clock of social democracy.
We shall break the clock of the Great Society. We shall break
the clock of the welfare state. We shall break the clock of the
New Deal. We shall break the clock of Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom
and perpetual war. We shall repeal the 20th century.
One of the
most inspiring and wonderful sights of our time was to see the
peoples of the Soviet Union rising up…to tear down in their fury
the statues of Lenin, to obliterate the Leninist legacy. We, too,
shall tear down all the statues of Franklin D. Roosevelt, of Harry
Truman, of Woodrow Wilson, melt them down and beat them into plowshares
and pruning hooks, and usher in a 21st century of peace, freedom,
August 18, 2011
Lazarowitz [send him mail]
is a commentator and cartoonist at Reasonandjest.com.
© 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Best of Scott Lazarowitz