Richard Maybury and Rick Rule on Why More War is Likely, the Future
of the US Dollar and Why Neither of Them Vote
by Anthony Wile
The Daily Bell
by Anthony Wile: Stop
Clinging to False Hope and Face Reality
Bell is pleased to present this exclusive interview with Richard
Maybury and Rick Rule.
Following the recent FreedomFest conference held in Las Vegas,
Nevada, The Daily Bell had an informal discussion with two of the
free-market world's more prominent figures, Rick Rule and Richard
Maybury. Both men have been relentless in their efforts to educate
people about Austrian economic principles and the benefits that
accrue to individuals who accept personal responsibility for their
own life decisions. Rule and Maybury are frequent speakers at investment
and freedom-oritented conferences around the world and regular guests
on a wide spectrum of radio and television programs. Their opinions
are already widely disseminated around the 'Net, but as the truth-telling
power of the Internet Reformation grows forward it is highly likely
their work will be in even greater demand.
Hi, Richard. Thanks for taking time out of the Freedom Fest to talk
with me today.
Maybury: You're welcome. There's a lot to talk about right now.
How much time have you got?
You're right about that. Rick Rule's planning to stop by, too, but
let's go ahead and get started now if that's okay with you.
Maybury: Sure. We'll save a chair for Rick.
For quite some time you've been referring to a place you call "Chaostan."
Before you explain just where Chaostan is, could you share any thoughts
on what you see as the level and source of corruption in government
Maybury: Writers for thousands of years have observed that political
power corrupts the morals and the judgment. Political power corrupts
because it is itself, corruption. It's the legal privilege of using
brute force on persons who have not harmed anyone. Only governments
have this privilege. Again, power corrupts not only the morals but
also the judgment.
So tell us about Chaostan, then. Given the global financial chaos
we're seeing right now, it could be almost anywhere on earth.
Maybury: I would like you to keep that in mind as I describe
two trends in Chaostan that are likely to have an effect on you
and your loved ones. I coined the term Chaostan in 1992 and it means
the land of the great chaos. It refers to the area between the Arctic
Ocean and the Indian Ocean and Poland to the Pacific, plus North
Africa. This is a most important area that entered the modern era
without legal systems that were rational, meaning for the most part
that laws were and are simply made up out of nothing. There is no
requirement for ethics or logic and so that area of the world has
been a vast sea of blood and destruction for centuries. If you don't
have law based on ethics and logic, that's what you get.
Which relates to what you said about governments' morals and judgment
being affected by power.
has easily been the bloodiest place in all of world history. Ever
since the Soviet Empire fell apart launching the new era of peace
and brotherly love two decades ago, I have been saying, invest in
things that do well in wartime.
As you can
imagine, those who have followed this advice had made astounding
profits. I think the spectacular performance of investments that
do well in wartime has plenty of life left in it.
What leads you to suggest this wartime environment will continue
for a long time?
Maybury: The main reason is called Westphalia. Since 1945, Washington
has been the leader of the world and the top player in international
agreements and law. In February 2001, I began warning about federal
officials erasing the 1555 peace of Augsburg and the 1648 Treaty
of Westphalia. These two treaties today are generally referred to
as simply, Westphalia.
were a reaction to the invention of gunpowder during the Middle
Ages. Gunpowder was un-nerving for rulers because the new weapon
made it cheap and easy to blow down the walls of the castles. The
two treaties were a partly successful attempt to keep any Tom, Dick
or Harry from settling old scores. The treaty said no nation could
attack another unless the other was a clear and present danger.
This was a principal of ethics drawn from the old common law. My
right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. We don't know
how many wars were prevented by these treaties because none of this
is measureable. We do know that eventually these treaties lead to
the Nuremburg trials in which Nazi leaders were sentenced to death
for starting a war in the absence of clear and present danger.
That treaty seems to have had no effect on recent American Presidents,
Maybury: In 2001, I warned that Clinton's attack on Serbia and
Bush's attack on Iraq were precedents replacing this ancient Westphalian
principle with a more primitive Roman one. The Roman principle says
the only justification you need to get into a war is the belief
that the other side is up to no good.
It sounds like you could be talking about any of the present conflicts.
Maybury: Now, Gaddafi is one of the least important tin leaders
of our time. In the vast array of political leaders I doubt he's
murdered enough people to rate an honorable mention. Until this
year, US officials had been boasting that Gaddafi was tamed. They
forced him to give up his WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) and
they were bragging that he was no longer a threat. Then suddenly
this year, on a completely unverifiable assumption, the new rulers
of Libya will be more ethical than Gaddafi. Obama followed the precedent
of Clinton and Bush. He jumped into the North African war on the
side of the Libyan rebels. Obama's participation in the war certainly
completes the demise of the Westphalian principle, but I have seen
little about it in the mainstream press.
What do you see as the broader effect of the media's silence on
this issue, giving Obama a pass as they have?
Maybury: By replacing the Westphalia rule with the Roman one,
that is by cementing the Clinton and Bush precedents, Obama has
given any Tom, Dick or Harry permission to settle old scores. Because
all you need now to start a war is a belief that the other side
is up to no good. Clear and present danger is no longer required.
In an Armed Forces Journal article by Colonel Robert Killebrew titled,
"A Darwinian World," Libya points to a New Era of Aggression
and Turmoil, and this is my key point. "Armed intervention
across international boundaries to the internal affairs is now accepted.
The Westphalia ideal of non internal affairs of other states is
as dead as a doornail."
So what you are really suggesting is that we as a society have actually
regressed because of this "cementing the precedent" of
war without a clear and present danger, then.
Maybury: Geopolitically we are back to the Dark Ages. As the
title of Killebrew's article indicates, whatever geopolitical epics
were in effect for centuries are gone. We are entering a dog eat
dog Darwinian free for all, a new era of aggression and turmoil.
You can hit anyone for any reason. That is one big development in
What else do you see happening in Chaostan?
Maybury: A second one is the use of mercenaries. At their peak
in 2008, there were more than 160,000 mercenaries operating in Iraq.
They outnumbered the uniformed army, navy, marines and air force.
The mercenary casualties are off the books; no reliable count is
kept by anyone we know of, so these casualties do not affect the
political decisions about getting into a war or about staying in
one. Most importantly, mercenaries are called military contractors,
which leads the public to assume that these are all guys who are
friends and neighbors who were in the US armed forces but went private,
that they are in the armed forces but are not wearing uniforms.
lot of them are Iraqi or Afghan tribal warlords and their troops
are on the federal government's payroll. Washington doesn't have
enough of its own troops to secure the supply line from Pakistan
to Afghanistan, so it hires warlords to do that job. These warlords
are paid a hefty amount of money, part of which they hand over to
al-Qaeda or the Taliban to buy passage along the road. It's important
for our fellow taxpayers to know that in effect, the use of these
mercenaries means our tax money is buying weapons and ammunition
for al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
is that everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan knows these warlords are
on Washington's payroll. So when one of the warlord troops murders
an innocent person, we Americans get blamed for it. Also, by hiring
the local warlords by giving them money, Washington strengthens
them and gives them control of the central government. So at the
same time America is spending American lives to prop up the Iraqi
and Afghan governments, it is also helping to strengthen the rivals
who are trying to overthrow those governments. Washington is paying
for the bullets being fired at American troops. Mercenaries have
worked so well for Washington because in effect, they are Washington's
private army that is not subject to the law or to political debate.
Is this increase in the use of mercenaries a uniquely American issue?
Maybury: No. There are lots of other governments around the
world that are getting interested in mercenaries now, too.
my point I made at the beginning, political power corrupts not only
the morals but also the judgment. So we are now seeing this yet
again being demonstrated in Chaostan, specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Put the two new Chaostan factors together the abolishment
of Westphalia and the rise of mercenaries and what picture
do you get?
We see chaos.
Maybury: Well, the one I get is kings, presidents and prime
ministers with their own private secret armies that invade other
countries without regard for any law or political process. If you
think the last two decades have been filled with war you
haven't seen anything yet.
That's not very optimistic, Richard. Good thing Rick Rule just got
here. Maybe he'll have a more hopeful perspective. Hi, Rick. Thanks
for joining us.
I got held up with the crowds at Freedom Fest. This is a great event.
We agree. Do you have a few minutes to have a seat and join us now?
Sure. I was just listening to Richard and I'm not sure view of things
is going to be the optimistic one you're looking for, but I'll try.
Well, let us ask Rick Maybury one follow-up question to what he
just said and then perhaps you can jump in?
You just said that we "haven't seen anything yet" when
it comes to the number of wars underway. Where do you think the
next war will be?
I think the next war will be in the Islamic world. Conflict in North
Africa and the Mideast is just going to keep on spreading. The rebels
have every reason to try to keep it going. The point is, these people
are not any better than the rulers they are trying to overthrow.
The US government has jumped to the conclusion that the rebels are
good guys. I don't believe that for a minute. I would not imagine
that there are more than one or two Thomas Jeffersons over there
and the thought that one of them is going to get control of those
countries is ridiculous. It's a done deal that the whole North Africa
and Mideast area is just going to keep mushrooming with more war.
One of the bright things that I see is that I have a different view
of the Middle East and about Thomas Jefferson. Mercifully, the Middle
East doesn't have so many rich and proud people who are generally
designed to be slave owners. I see a lot of things about Thomas
Jefferson that I don't see particularly attractive. I do a lot of
business with and have a lot of friends in the Middle East and I
would not describe it as a uniformly evil place. I agree with Richard
that the people that are fighting for political power for the most
part are parenthetically republicans and democrats, which is to
say, bad people (laughing) Islamic democrats and republicans.
I do a lot
of investing in the Middle East and I don't disagree with Richard's
stance that that part of the world is chaotic. But my point of view
is different; I have come to find that the rule of law is increasingly
absent in places like Albertastan, in Californiastan and Pennsylvaniastan.
The difference is that Caucasian people, Western people like myself,
tend to believe that political risk that is, political theft
that takes place in English by white people according to the rule
of law is somewhat less heinous than honest political risk
that takes place with a warlord taking your wallet at the point
of a gun. The money is in fact no less gone. My difficulty is that
in the West, I don't get paid to take the political risk.
You will remember
a discussion we had earlier in a period of high natural gas prices,
when the people's republic of Alberta, the bastion free enterprise
of Canada, decided that the rents that were accruing to private
risk takers were egregious and the conservative government of Alberta
decided to up the social take from 30 to 50%. At that point in time
the fiscal regime in Alberta resembled the fiscal regime in Libya
I agree with
what Richard has said, except that I think the political risks that
we face in the United States or in Canada are more extreme than
we realize as a consequence of the political corruption that Richard
has talked about.
I agree with what you said and I don't want anyone to accuse me
of saying that the US government is less corrupt than any other
Do you think the American public is "getting" the free-market
movement or has nothing changed?
One thing that is for sure is the movement is getting younger. Doug
Casey used to have a conference and instead of gaining younger people
it was older, white males getting together and the crowd was older
and older. I speak at many conferences and see younger faces in
the crowd. There is a group out there called Students for Liberty
and they are working to advance the vision of free academy and a
I got into this movement in 1971 and believe me, there was nobody
in it. It was me and two other people. It was right after Vietnam
and the US coming off the gold standard. Now people realize that
there is a lot of bad happening out there and it needs to be stopped,
but they are not moving too quickly to make anything change.
Tell us about being in Vietnam. Did it serve a purpose?
I flew into Vietnam but I wasn't stationed there. I was stationed
in Central America. I was in the 605th Special Operations squadron,
which was a revival of the air commando units that the Air Force
had during WWII. They decided during Vietnam they were going to
revive the air commando units. They made several of them and that
was mainly what my job was. I was stationed in Central America training
those troops. The reason, we were told, was we are protecting the
world from communism. That was the excuse for everything.
We are protecting
the world against communism. Friends in my outfit spoke Spanish
and so when we were working with other people down there, whether
they were friends or enemies of the dictator, it didn't matter.
These Spanish speaking guys could talk to them and talk politics
and the story that you heard all the time was exactly the story
you heard coming from Vietnam, I asked about Marxism and Communism
and all that, but they thought that Karl Marx was Groucho's brother....
It began to dawn on me that this hasn't got anything to do with
communism. These people don't know what it is.
So I came back
after I realized the government was lying like hell to everybody
and it was a big wake-up for me. I was young. I went in at 20 and
came out at 24. Another realization for me was when the bombing
of Cambodia was taking place it was top secret. Well, why was it
top secret? Everybody in Europe knew and the enemy knew we were
dropping bombs on them, so who is this secret from? It was secret
from the American people.
I was not in Vietnam. I got out of high school in 1970 and as a
young American male was going to travel I chose Vancouver
rather than Saigon. The weather was not as good, of course, but
the other reason for chosing Vancouver was there was a draft in
those days. And although I went north before the draft, I wanted
to be sure my number was low. The choice of whether I went or not
was my own. My lottery number was such that Russian troops would
have had to threaten Blaine, (WA) for me to have been called. That
was what I was dreaming. I decided in terms of a geopolitical sense
that the communists were making faint in Vietnam and the Russians
were going to come across the Bering Sea and down to the Columbian
and Fraser Gorge and I alone had figured this out and I alone was
left to defend America.
Too funny. Moving on... did or has the US achieved anything in Afghanistan?
I think the main thing they helped in destroying is the Treaty of
Westphalia. They have shown to the world that Washington and the
US military-industrial complex will attack you for no reason at
all or some ridiculously minor reason or who knows? There are no
guidelines so you just better obey.
You know when I look in the dictionary and I look up defense it
doesn't describe sufficiently for me what we are defending. I could
understand if there are Pashtun troops in Florida, how we have to
take a run at them. It is very difficult to understand what we are
attempting to accomplish there. It would make perfect sense to me
if the Afghans were harboring Osama bin Laden, which at one point
in time allegedly they were. But at some point in time we say, "Sorry,
you have a house guest that we have to take out and you can produce
him for us or we will take out your house." After we have done
that, the idea that we have the obligation to rebuild the house
doesn't make a lot of sense.
I am not a
geopolitical guy per se, but I think in terms of US defense and
we said to these foreign countries, "If you guys, the ruling
class, are harboring people who make attacks against US soil, we
can't tell you much except that you won't be the ruling class next
week. We don't know who will replace you but bear in mind you will
be excused from your job forcibly." And we need to go in and
break legs, if we need to, and then we have to leave. We have proven
in a series of places that we don't do a very good job of remaking
places that don't want to be remade by us.
The whole Iraqi and Afghanistan war thing is ridiculous. An experiment
that Washington doesn't want to try is to just lay out a reward
for the death of whoever they know was behind this. If this doesn't
get the guy killed then raise the reward and keep on raising it
until he is dead. It is certainly going to be a lot less money than
what they are doing there now.
What are your thoughts on 9-11? What do you think happened?
I personally don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories. I think
that a group of Arab Muslims, probably called al-Qaeda, probably
lead by bin Laden, decided to make a spectacular hit on a group
of people they had cultural and military dislike for. I think it
came down more or less as described by the popular media.
What I disagree
with in terms of the media's assessment is that their attack on
9-11 was unprovoked. Osama bin Laden himself said that he didn't
have a dog in this fight, except that there were infidel troops
in Muslim lands true or false, it sounds true to me. That
we were propping up corrupt dictatorships that were oppressing Muslim
people true or false, it sounds true to me and that
we were participants in aggressive Zionism, protecting the state
of Israel true or false, it sounds true to me. So the suggestion
that what they did was unprovoked is not something that makes sense
Were I Osama
bin Laden, I probably would have, for various reasons, as Doug Casey
says, made reprisal to the Pentagon, the Whitehouse and the IRS.
Had they hit the IRS, I suspect that the reaction of some elements
of American society would have been substantially less hostile and
some Americans might have regarded him as a liberator. And that
is only partly in jest.
So in terms
of what happened on 9-11, my inclination in a factual sense is it
happened very much as I have described. My belief with regards to
the origin of that incident and the response to that incident is
very different than the interpretation you would get from mainstream
media or a US citizen.
I agree with absolutely every word you said, but I think there is
more depth to it and I emphasize, I THINK. If you look at
the history of covert warfare you see it was invented in the Middle
East. And it was invented by a group of people that became known
as the Assassins, which is a branch religion from Islam, and there
are still some remnants around above ground. For 15 or 20 years
I have suspected that when the Assassins were eliminated they weren't
really eliminated; they went way underground and they still exist.
The federal government blamed al-Qaeda and bin Laden for all this
but I kind of think that bin Laden was just a gopher for the real
covert group that is underground and that we will never find out
about it. They have centuries of experience in staying hidden and
in concocting these sorts of things. In one of my Uncle Eric books
Thousand Year War I suggest they are so far underground
that we will never know. It could be somebody who lives down the
street from you, or anywhere else in the world. They are not confined
to the Middle East.
I think they
put this thing together for all the reasons Rick described and all
this killing that is going on over there now is basically for nothing
because it doesn't have any ability to hurt the people that are
basically behind it and never will have that ability.
I have to respond to that because we might have an argument now.
The Hashishin, which is the root word of assassin and also hashish,
were Shia, not Sunni, Muslims. And this branch of Shia really were
driven out of Persia and they evolved into the Shia sect today known
as Ismail. To the extent that some remnant of Hashishin didn't become
Ismail is something else I would have to consider. The descendants
of the Hashishin are the followers of the Aga Khan and if I were
to be a religious person, which I am not, I would probably be Ismail
Muslim. The Aga Khan is the only exemplary religious leader I know
of, other than perhaps the Buddhists. I personally fear least the
direct descendants of the Hashishin which are the today's Ismailis,
the followers of the Aka Khan.
I don't disagree with that. The Ismails are the go-betweens between
the open world that we all know and that covert world. There may
only be one in a thousand of them that are in contact with anybody.
But I keep coming back to covert warfare and it was invented in
the Middle East and for us to think that we are going to somehow
compete or do something about this covert group that have been there
for nine centuries these guys have experience beyond our
imagination. I don't think we have a prayer against them.
Let's talk about gold and silver. What is going to be the better
performer in the near future?
Maybury: I think silver is your best bet because it tends to
be so volatile and it is going to spike sooner than other precious
metals as the people's money becomes in greater demand due to general
For the speculator, the greed buyer, clearly silver. Silver is extremely
volatile and there is a shortage in the physical market relative
to the futures market. There is the making of a short squeeze on
steroids. I am not a greed buyer. I speculate in other ways. I am
a fear buyer. From a fear buyer's point of few, gold has certain
advantages. It is more valuable and you can store greater amounts
of it in smaller space. So if you are asking which will do better?
Silver. If you are asking what am I buying? Gold.
Will the US dollar ever be backed by gold again?
Maybury: I think something will be maybe the dollar.
I think economic forces will push some number of governments into
backing their currencies by gold or a basket of commodities. Otherwise,
I cannot make that prediction.
I think it's highly unlikely. Gold restrains politicians and politicians
would prefer not to be constrained. Gold also is a form of wealth
it isn't somebody else's liability so a gold-backed
currency reduces society's ability to steal from winners to subsidize
losers and the nature of society is there are many more losers in
society than there are winners. And in a democracy, one of the things
that a democracy exists to do is to legitimize the theft by the
many from the few. So in the first instance, a gold standard isn't
in the interest of the political class and the second, a gold standard
isn't in the interest of the majority of the population. So I am
very gloomy about the prospects of a gold standard, which shouldn't
diminish gold's attractiveness for people who would like to store
their wealth in a non-fiat form.
Maybury: You're assuming the continuation of the US government.
Maybe not, but if the US government were to fall about 70
percent of the people would still prefer a form of theft to a form
Maybury: As things exist now they will. But I remember in Vietnam,
there was one point where the Vietnamese president had been killed
and a bunch of generals met in a room and said, "Now what are
we going to do?" And they said, "Well, we have to pick
somebody to be a president," and nobody would do it. (Laughing)
I think America is leading up to that kind of crisis, where there
is going to be a meeting in a room and somebody is going to make
Do you think the US dollar will lose its reserve currency status?
I think it is already very close. This is a point Peter Schiff recently
made and he should be credited with this. Regarding the debt ceiling
raise, Peter says there will be a limit to the debt. If the US government
doesn't impose a limit on itself, the rest of the world will. I
don't think there will be a choice. It's going to happen. The typical
individual in America or anywhere in the world is paralyzed by confusion
about what the government is doing. If you listen to what Obama
is saying about the debt level, he's asking, if we don't go further
into debt we are going to get into financial trouble?
of people are raised in government-controlled schools where they
are taught to worship and trust the government. Now people know,
listening to the President practically every day making statements
like that. The average person now can tell these people are
nuts. So, on one hand he's got this propaganda that's been poured
into his head for 12 years in the government-controlled schools
and on the other hand, his own personal common sense is telling
him, "These people I was taught to trust are crazy." So
I don't think the US has ever been in a situation like that before
where the average person could sit and listen to the President on
TV and realize that the guy is nuts.
I wonder during the depression when Franklin Delano Roosevelt
came on TV, if he was nuts. But people didn't want to believe he
was nuts. People want other people to solve their problems mostly.
I would prefer someone else solve my problems, but they have never
been solved to my satisfaction by anybody but myself. So I wonder.
You know the hippies had that great slogan, "What if they gave
a war and nobody came?" Well, what if they charged a tax and
nobody paid? What if they passed a law and nobody obeyed? In the
near term, I don't think I am very optimistic. Eventually though,
if the money doesn't exist to keep it going, when the thing really
starts to wobble, people have to wake up.
Maybury: There is another factor here that we haven't really
looked at and that is the generation that is running the world right
now, which is the baby boom generation. And the baby boomers went
through the Vietnam War and they have it engrained in their DNA
to not trust the government. That's the one thing they learned in
the Vietnam War. So they have this inclination already to be extremely
skeptical and I think a lot of them now are having Déjà
vu to the war protest days. They're seeing the same sorts of body
language and general lying from the leaders that they did in the
1960s and '70s. So, you have really extremely influential people
who have that Vietnam background and it's been lying dormant for
30 years, but I suspect that may be coming back to the surface now,
I never would have described myself as gloomier than Richard Maybury.
(Laughing) But my suspicion is that the baby boomers are so self
absorbed that what we thought was wrong with government was the
fact that we didn't run it. And it would surprise me if we didn't
believe that now that we run it, that we somehow aren't better thugs
I mean governors than those that came before us. But
I would love to see what Richard said come to pass.
Do you either of you vote?
I did once.
I voted when Harry Browne was running because it was so amusing
to me that I could vote for someone who was close to me. I haven't
What are some of your top sites for news and information?
Maybury: I have researchers who go through numerous sites and
stations looking for stories and information searching out bits
and pieces for me to review.
I pay Bloomberg to be a news aggregator for me. That's my primary
source. My secondary source of raw news but also paradigm is Aljazeera,
to me the best regular news site in the world, in fact owned by
the Qatar government. It's the most unbiased news organization on
the planet. They state their bias as opposed to imply it.
I get paradigm mostly from the newsletter writers, but all raw news
from Bloomberg and Aljazeera. I often check The Daily Bell, too.
Maybury: I also review The Daily Bell, especially to read the
Thank you for sitting down with us today. It's always a pleasure
to speak with both of you.
Maybury: Thank you. The Bell is a wonderful resource.
we thank Richard Maybury and Rick Rule for taking the time to share
their views of the world with our readers. They have been two of
the more prescient forecasters with respect to identifying macro
trends, both geopolitical and financial, and have helped many to
implement asset protection, as well as asset growth strategies.
informal chat reveals a good deal about both men's
current perspectives on what people can likely expect over the coming
months and years more Anglosphere created wars, a devaluing
US dollar, a weakening euro (perhaps dying), rising prices for gold
and silver, and generally speaking, the potential for civil chaos
and turmoil throughout the Western world.
There are some
points we would like to comment on in this interview.
One would be
the issue as it relates to the Treaty of Westphalia. While it is
true that the US has ignored it and continues to battle "perceived
threats" in the name of spreading "democracy" around
the world, we think it is the United Nations that ultimately paved
the way for them to do that.
It has been
noted that the Peace of Westphalia actually came to an end when
the UN approved R2P, the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.
This mandate is based on the idea that states have a primary role
to play in shielding their populations from genocide. If the state
abdicates this role, the "international community" should
provide additional resources from mediation to political structures.
Finally, if the genocide still threatens, the larger community must
use diplomatic and even military action to ensure that civilians
With this doctrine
in place no sovereign state can truly be said to exist anymore.
In the place of sovereignty is the UN itself and its member states
with amorphous responsibilities to police each others sociopolitical
actives with an eye to determining whether any state is committing
since an Anglo-America power elite generally runs the UN, and seeks
global governance, R2P gives the Anglosphere enormous, worldwide
powers. Any nation-state that does not obey the Anglosphere's dictates
can now find itself on the wrong side of a massed international
"coalition of the willing" led by NATO and fulfilling
the strategic desires of the City of London, Washington DC and perhaps
even Tel Aviv.
language of R2P grants a broad license for intrusive military actions
into countries deemed desireable, for whatever reason, to implement
"change." The US has been front and center in several
countries, as has France in the Ivory Coast, at demonstrating how
the "new license" will be utlilized. No country or its
leaders is safe from a Western invasion under the new R2P guidelines.
As for 9/11,
we remain unconvinced that the mainstream reports regarding the
events of that horrific day are the reality of the sitiuation.
as we have previously written, we think that a new investigation
into 9/11 would go a long way to dispelling confusion and, perhaps,
It is also
important because 9/11 lies at the heart of what America is becoming.
It has been responsible for at least two wars in the Middle East
and caused a wholesale change in the way Americans relate to their
government. Unlimited wiretapping, aggressive monitoring of communications
without warrants and other invasive governmental actions have been
justified by a supposed need for increased security as a result
We think there
is a lot more to the story than greets the mainstream eye.
at this point there will undoubtedly be more war and conflict as
NATO and the US military-industrial complex continue their quest
to install "democracy" around the world. Why in heavens
name does a country with serious economic problems to say
the least continue down this road of immoral destruction?
We think we
know why and believe it has a lot more to do with readying the world
for a new world order than anything else.
with permission from The
Wile is an author, columnist, media commentator and entrepreneur
focused on developing projects that promote the general advancement
of free-market thinking concepts. He is the chief editor of the
popular free-market oriented news site, TheDailyBell.com.
Mr. Wile is the Executive Director of The Foundation for the Advancement
of Free-Market Thinking – a non-profit Liechtenstein-based foundation.
His most popular book, High
Alert, is now in its third edition and available in several
languages. Other notable books written by Mr. Wile include The
Liberation of Flockhead (2002) and The Value of Gold (2002).
© 2011 The
Best of Anthony Wile