Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Jeff Bezos’

Power Elite Analysis: The Rockefeller World Empire – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 2, 2021

By Charles Burris$/embed/how-big-oil-conquered-the-world/06095dc87bbe492ae15c8e3d92bdc03fd17663ab?r=5dLh3P41ND2YErqLnrLQANUNrCiYniij$/embed/why-big-oil-conquered-the-world/a3e1264f7b8fbcf4894685631b36ae02f1faed3d?r=5dLh3P41ND2YErqLnrLQANUNrCiYniij

Today the names of Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, George Soros, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg are the powerful globalist billionaire oligarchs which come to mind when using power elite analysis to study global governance and technocratic tyranny of the planet’s people and resources

But for decades the sly old weasel David Rockefeller presided over what economist/historian Murray Rothbard aptly called the Rockefeller World Empire (RWE), survived the demise of his siblings and reigned unopposed until the age of 101. The central focus of Rockefeller’s life was dedicated to the expansion and consolidation of the RWE. This has been his proud legacy and the world’s unconscionable and horrific burden. Under his visionary rubric of the New World Order, a global governance by a predatory plutocracy of oligarchs such as himself has been carefully shaped for decades.

There are those in academia and the elite news media who characterize anyone who raises the impending spectre of a coming “New World Order” as a “conspiracy theorist.” Such “researchers” who attempt to document plans for the implementation of an authoritarian world government with far-reaching political and financial control are simply delusional and suffer from status anxiety, psychological projection, fusion paranoia, conspiracism, or producerism. Since court historian Richard Hofstadter‘s Ur-text in the field, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays, was published in 1965 (following the Goldwater presidential campaign debacle), a thriving sub-genre of debunking screeds have appeared in the academic and popular press attacking these alleged “conspiracy theorists.”

This has been exceedingly disingenuous and deceptive. During this same period we saw the emergence at universities coast-to-coast of what has been labeled “World Order Studies.” For over twenty five years I have had a copy of Peace and World Order Studies: A Curriculum Guide, published in 1978. It is 476 pages in length, and is a collection of introductory essays, course outlines or syllabi from university faculty across the nation (along with a bibliography of books and periodicals) for teaching global studies leading to the implementation of a New World Order. It was published by The Institute for World Order, and contains the following acknowledgement:

Very special thanks are due, also, to the Rockefeller Foundation without whose generous support neither this curriculum guide nor its forthcoming companion manual (Global Interdependence and Human Survival: An Introduction to World Order Studies) would have been possible.

Kinda let the old cat outta the bag, didn’t it David?

The Best of Charles Burris Charles A. Burris [send him mail] teaches history in the Murray N. Rothbard Room at Memorial High School in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Parler No More – Taki’s Magazine – Taki’s Magazine

Posted by M. C. on March 16, 2021

So what will the future bring under such circumstances? I see America becoming less democratic and increasingly feudal, with a middle class sort of becoming extinct. Small businesses such as mom-and-pop stores are already extinct because of Amazon; manufacturing and agricultural businesses are on their way down. What is to be done? With Congress in the pocket of the oligarchs, not much, I’m afraid. Soon there will be bans on ideological language, as it is now called by woke students and oligarch followers; words such as “woman” and “breastfeeding” will be banned.


It is the sine qua non of a successful coup to first and foremost ensure the takeover of the means of information: radio, television, and newspapers. That is what the Greek colonels did in the last successful European coup back on April 21, 1967. Some years later, a colonel tried to overthrow the elected post-Franco Spanish government but failed, having taken over the Parliament rather than the TV and radio station.

This, of course, is old hat to Central American banana republics, and an everyday occurrence in the Middle East and in every developing African country. And now for the first time, a rather developed country that has been a democracy since its creation almost 250 years ago has abolished (canceled) free speech—unless, of course, it passes muster with the three great American oligarchs who decide what we can say.

Before I describe these three great American men who have the ultimate veto over our free speech, a word about the new online network platforms that represent a new kind of power that poses a challenge to the power of the state. These network platforms began as decentralized entities, but turned into oligarchical weapons for stifling speech their masters did not agree with. Simply put, a very few are excluding a hell of a lot from a domain the courts have recognized as a public forum. In other words, to hell with the First Amendment unless we like what you say. Which today means sex offenders have a right to access online social networks, but an ex-president of the U.S. does not. “Corporate monopolies and the left have now teamed up to shut down free speech in the latest form of cancel culture.”

And it gets better. An independent social media site, Parler, was closed down thanks to Amazon (and Apple), which is like GM shutting down Ford because the latter represents competition. Throughout this, a few Republican senators have raised their voices, but no one really took notice. What is being shut down, actually, is news and opinions the three oligarchs do not wish you to know. It’s as simple as that. Corporate monopolies and the left have now teamed up to shut down free speech in the latest form of cancel culture. The alliance of leftists and woke capitalists is the most lethal since the Stalin-Nazi pact of 1939, and it aims to regulate all thought from school to retirement. Control, censor, and cancel are the order of the day in social media, as Big Tech now regulates speech—and eventually our thoughts.

So who are these great men who have replaced, say, George Washington, Patrick Henry, and Abe Lincoln as our heroes? I find what they have in common are their good looks. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg’s face gives the impression of being covered by a silk stocking like those worn by bank robbers; Jack Dorsey, the Twitter man, looks like a 1960s drugged hippy bum fished out from the San Francisco Bay; while the richest, the Amazon man Jeff Bezos, is a poster boy for a sex-pervert satyr threatening young virgins in a French blue film of the ’30s. Great looks go hand in hand with great powers—just remember how handsome Hitler and Stalin were. These last two would have been envious of Zuckie, Jeff, and Jack’s thought-control abilities, as it would have saved them lots of manpower wasted in the camps.

The above and other tech giants now dominate the Democratic Party, own much of the media, and can manipulate the social media platforms, where a growing proportion of Americans get their news. Congress is not about to do anything about this because the Democrats are in charge, and even if they were not, powerful lobbies by the techies would go into overdrive to stop any legislation against their monopolies.

So what will the future bring under such circumstances? I see America becoming less democratic and increasingly feudal, with a middle class sort of becoming extinct. Small businesses such as mom-and-pop stores are already extinct because of Amazon; manufacturing and agricultural businesses are on their way down. What is to be done? With Congress in the pocket of the oligarchs, not much, I’m afraid. Soon there will be bans on ideological language, as it is now called by woke students and oligarch followers; words such as “woman” and “breastfeeding” will be banned.

Over in Britain, where wokeness is as virulent as it is over here, Boris’ government has decided to do something about it. The education minister has decreed that universities that stifle free speech and torpedo Britain’s history will be denied funds. Ditto for charities and other such bodies that depend on government subsidies. This is a good first step, as the Brits want to defend their culture and history from a noisy minority of activists who are attempting to rewrite Britain’s past.

And yet, never in a million years would I have suspected that I would write such a column as this one. A civil right of every American to speak freely was the first thing I learned about this country when I arrived here from Europe at age 12. Yet Google, Apple, and the three controlled by the beauties I’ve mentioned above are denying that right to millions of Americans, and Congress is doing nothing about it. Time to call in the Marines—our freedom of speech is disappearing faster than the three beauties’ billions are multiplying.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment » What is the Problem With, For “Social Justice” Purposes, Taking Half of the $203 Billion Wealth of Jeff Bezos and Giving It To the Poor?

Posted by M. C. on November 21, 2020

Here’s a Don Boudreaux letter to a college student writing a paper on what he calls “the social justice of wealth redistribution”:

Mr. Eden:

Thanks for your e-mail.

You ask: “Why shouldn’t government tax away half of Jeff Bezos’ wealth and give it to America’s poor people.” In your assessment, “this would be fair without hurting Bezos.”

My disagreements with your assessment are many, but I have time now to list only three.

First and primarily, it’s immoral to take stuff belonging to other people. Because Bezos acquired his wealth lawfully, to take it is wrong. Note also that he acquired his wealth in a manner that bestows enormous benefits on hundreds of millions of his fellow human beings, and that he has already paid billions of dollars of taxes on his earnings.

Second, Bezos’s wealth is now reported at $203 billion. With 34 million Americans currently below the poverty line, confiscating half of Bezos’s fortune and distributing it equally to these poor Americans would give each a one-time windfall of $2,985. A nice sum. But it’s not enough to transform their lives. More fundamentally, people’s lives aren’t transformed for the better by being given windfalls. Transformation comes from within, personally, and from better policies that allow the creation of more and better opportunities.

Third, Bezos’s net worth is what it is because the vast bulk of it is invested in Amazon and other productive enterprises. If he suddenly must turn over half of his wealth to the government, he would not draw it from his consumption (which is what you mean when you say that this policy would not hurt Bezos). He would draw it out of his investments. And resources currently used in valuable productive uses would become much less valuable when turned into goods and services for current consumption. And so to give each poor American $2,985 paid for by Jeff Bezos would require that far more than half of his fortune be seized.

You might nevertheless be good with this outcome, for it would still leave Bezos very wealthy. It would still not put a dent in his lifestyle. But the American economy would suffer greatly. Not only would the economy lose, in one fell swoop, well over a hundred billion dollars of assets – which means the loss of whatever outputs those assets produce – but lose also untold trillions of dollars of assets over time that would have been, but will not be, created. Like it or not, people do not invest heavily when government seizes large chunks of the fruits of their successes.

Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA  22030

The above originally appeared at Cafe Hayek

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Donald Boudreaux: Conversation with a young socialist |

Posted by M. C. on April 5, 2019

Recently near my office at George Mason University I ran into a student of mine who was showing his friend around campus. The friend is thinking of transferring from Radford University to George Mason.

The friend — call him “Jack” — wore a T-shirt emblazoned with the famous image of Che Guevara.

Inferring from my economics lectures that I’m no great admirer of Guevara, my student joked awkwardly that Jack’s other favorite T-shirt features an image of Milton Friedman.

Jack didn’t laugh. Instead he asked me why I object to Guevara.

I was in no mood for confrontation, so I chose not to inform Jack of Guevara’s bloodlust. I instead replied simply that “Guevara was a socialist and I disapprove of socialism.”

“Why?” Jack asked.

“Because,” I answered, “socialism has never delivered on its promise to enrich the masses — quite the opposite — and it always turns into tyranny. Just look at the Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela. Even what we might call ‘socialist-lite’ countries do rather poorly.”

Jack’s look turned defensive. But before he could respond, I asked what he meant by socialism.

Jack admitted that he wasn’t sure of the details. He just wants to live in a society that’s “more just.”

I asked Jack for a specific example of an injustice in America today that would disappear under socialism.

“Inequality!” he answered immediately. Opining that it is “unjust” for one person to have multiple times more wealth than others, Jack expressed his desire for massive income redistribution.

I then asked a follow-up question that I knew would cause Jack to think that I was changing the subject. “What’s your college grade point average so far?” Jack replied, “3.85.”

“Very impressive!” I said sincerely. “You’re among a relatively small number of students at Radford who’ve accumulated such a large number of high grades.”

Jack looked at me suspiciously. I pressed on, asking if he favors grade redistribution: transferring “A” grades from students with “unjust” amounts of A’s to students with very few high grades.

Being an intelligent young man, Jack saw where I was headed. He replied “That’s different. I earned my good grades.” To which I replied: “Yes. So what makes you think that very rich people such as Jeff Bezos and Lady Gaga did not earn their great wealth?”

Before Jack could answer, I put to him another question: “If you knew that Bezos, Gaga and other very rich people earned their wealth, would you then call the difference in their wealth from that of ordinary Americans ‘unjust’?”

Jack dodged my questions by insisting that “no one needs that amount of money.”

“That’s not the question,” I protested. “The question is about the justice of the likes of Bezos owning so much more wealth than is owned by ordinary people. Tell me, Jack: What is unjust about Jeff Bezos having billions of dollars if it is all wealth that he earned, just as you earned all of your high grades?”

Jack answered confidently: “It’s unjust because it gives Bezos more power than others.”

“More power?!” I reacted surprisingly. “What power does Bezos have over you or me? He can’t force us to shop at Amazon.”

Jack heard enough. Walking away in a huff, he brushed me off as if I were an uncomprehending old goat…

Be seeing you






Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bill Maher Bashes Middle America: Less ‘Affluent and Educated’ People Who ‘Want to Be Us’

Posted by M. C. on February 24, 2019

The nation’s premier progressive spokesperson has it backward about whom wants own who.

Are you one of Maher’s deplorable?

By Ben Kew

“Maybe that has something to do with why Trump voters are obsessed with ‘owning the libs.’ Because the libs own everything else,” he continued. “The blue parts of America are having a big prosperity party while that big sea of red feels like their invitation got lost in the mail.”

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Case for Legalizing Blackmail | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on February 23, 2019

Due to Jeff Bezos’ public accusations against the National Enquirer, the topic of blackmail is in the news. Tyler Cowen wrote an article for Bloomberg in which he largely took it for granted that blackmail was a bad practice, but he at least linked to a 1985 law review article by Walter Block and David Gordon arguing that the practice should be legalized (if not necessarily praised).

Continuing the discussion, over at the website EconLog, David R. Henderson chimed in on the side of Block and Gordon, and also linked to Robin Hanson , who thinks nobody has ever offered a good argument for keeping blackmail illegal. On the other hand, at the same EconLog website, Scott Sumner rejects these defenses and argues that blackmail is a socially harmful practice that the government rightfully outlaws.

In the present article, I’ll summarize and elaborate upon Block and Gordon’s case for legalizing blackmail, and I’ll point out some of the major problems with Sumner’s arguments in favor of its current prohibition.

Blackmail Is Not Extortion

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Jeff Bezos Puts the Pentagon on His Monopoly Board | The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on November 5, 2018

The real prize is to become the military’s sole procurement source for off-the-shelf components. 

Employees at Google and Microsoft...They don’t want to be responsible for developing technology that causes substantial harm, surveils others in violation of international norms, or contravenes human rights.

Do Google and MS have an App for selective guilt? Here is where I get to use one of my favorite terms, thank you Star Trek.

Non sequitur


Speaking at the Wired 25th anniversary last month month, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos announced that his company will continue to accept Pentagon contracts. That includes a very controversial cloud-computing contract that Google and Microsoft have already backed out of due to vocal employee opposition to working with the U.S. military.

Amazon was long considered the front-runner for this contract, but Bezos’s rationale for taking it goes well beyond its being low-hanging fruit. He’s argued that the government’s job is to “make the right decision, even when it’s unpopular,” and that large tech companies should support those decisions irrespective of politics.

The $10 billion tied to the contract can’t hurt either. Whatever his motivation for sucking it up and taking one for team tech, Bezos’s public justification is a poor one, and it isn’t hard to see why. The Pentagon has a long history of immoral and reckless behavior, actions that objectively aren’t beneficial to the defense of the United States. Any company that blindly works with them does so at its own peril. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Here’s The Criticism Jeff Bezos and Amazon Actually Deserve… | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on September 17, 2018

By Joe Jarvis

People like Bernie Sanders attack the rich for being successful.

Yesterday we talked about legislation Bernie Sanders introduced last week. Called the Stop BEZOS Act, it specifically targeted Jeff Bezos, the founder, and CEO of Amazon, and richest person in the world.

If it passes, the legislation will tax large corporations 100% of the dollar value of any welfare any of their employees get from the federal government. It is basically a disincentive to hire poor people. Plus it nudges companies to automate with robots to avoid liability and other costs of human workers.

Jeff Bezos should not be criticized for being successful, making a lot of money, and providing half a million jobs of all skill levels.

But the endless anti-free-market whining of Democratic Socialists drowns out the valid criticism of Jeff Bezos.

I agree with portions of a letter sent to Jeff Bezos on behalf of 100 of his employees. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »