"Fools rush in.." Edwin Vieira Jr. article

[galtgulch]

Here is the link to Vieira's article at www.newswithviews.com:

http://tinyurl.com/byfqb4

Anyone here consider that Plan B and Plan C await us?

gulch

[Chris Grieb]

Galt; When I looked at Vieira's picture I thought he would make a good villain in Atlas Shrugged.

[Alfonso Jones]

Here is the link to Vieira's article at www.newswithviews.com:

http://tinyurl.com/byfqb4

Anyone here consider that Plan B and Plan C await us?

gulch

galt -

Please take a look at the website you have just linked to. In particular, note the DVDs and books being sold there. Lots of conspiracy theory stuff there

Either Vieira is a conspiracy theorist himself, or he is promoting people who are. Does this seem to you to be a characteristic of a person with a solid grasp on reality?

Bill P

Edited February 5, 2009 by Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

Bill P.; I didn't look at the website but I am not surprised. I think there is some evidence that Galt doesn't have both oars in the water but may not know he is even in a boat.

Galt; I thought Vieira looked like Dr. Simon Pritchett.

[galtgulch]

Bill P.; I didn't look at the website but I am not surprised. I think there is some evidence that Galt doesn't have both oars in the water but may not know he is even in a boat.

Galt; I thought Vieira looked like Dr. Simon Pritchett.

You guys give new meaning to the concept of ad hominem arguments.

Not a word about what Vieira had to say, just suggest that I may not have both oars in the water.

I did ask a question about what Vieira is suggesting but neither of you take the trouble to know what he means and what he proposes.

Notice I don't call myself galt here anymore? i wish you would address me with my gulch identity so as not to offend true Objectivists.

www.campaignforliberty.com 102434

gulch

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill P.; I didn't look at the website but I am not surprised. I think there is some evidence that Galt doesn't have both oars in the water but may not know he is even in a boat.

Galt; I thought Vieira looked like Dr. Simon Pritchett.

You guys give new meaning to the concept of ad hominem arguments.

Not a word about what Vieira had to say, just suggest that I may not have both oars in the water.

I did ask a question about what Vieira is suggesting but neither of you take the trouble to know what he means and what he proposes.

Notice I don't call myself galt here anymore? i wish you would address me with my gulch identity so as not to offend true Objectivists.

www.campaignforliberty.com 102434

gulch

Not exactly, gulch. I gave reasons for believing Vieira was sympathetic to a "conspiracy theory" mentality, if not a conspiracy theorist myself. Reread my brief post if you missed that, please.

Bill P

[galtgulch]

Bill P.; I didn't look at the website but I am not surprised. I think there is some evidence that Galt doesn't have both oars in the water but may not know he is even in a boat.

Galt; I thought Vieira looked like Dr. Simon Pritchett.

You guys give new meaning to the concept of ad hominem arguments.

Not a word about what Vieira had to say, just suggest that I may not have both oars in the water.

I did ask a question about what Vieira is suggesting but neither of you take the trouble to know what he means and what he proposes.

Notice I don't call myself galt here anymore? i wish you would address me with my gulch identity so as not to offend true Objectivists.

www.campaignforliberty.com 102434 6Feb 7AM 102525

gulch

Not exactly, gulch. I gave reasons for believing Vieira was sympathetic to a "conspiracy theory" mentality, if not a conspiracy theorist myself. Reread my brief post if you missed that, please.

Bill P

Bill P.,

You refer mainly to the other stuff on the site rather than indicating that you have read and grasped what Vieira says himself. If you are unwilling to take his ideas seriously that is up to you. I think he is knowledgeable and articulate, familiar with the law and an advocate of original intent of the Constitution. I generally value his opinion, so far more than that of others here who just cast aspersions and innuendoes.

102484; 6Feb 102525

“The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it.” –Chinese Proverb

gulch

Edited February 6, 2009 by galtgulch

[Chris Grieb]

Gulch; I still think Vieira looks like Dr Pritchett.

I'm glad to see you are no longer calling yourself Ayn Rand's greatest hero.

[galtgulch]

Gulch; I still think Vieira looks like Dr Pritchett.

I'm glad to see you are no longer calling yourself Ayn Rand's greatest hero.

That was never my intention. I was going for galtsgulch as a screen name, not galt himself. I did study engineering before finding my way elsewhere but I did encounter some brilliant minds in others along the way. I never met Nicola Tesla but think he comes closest to being a galt like creature except I am unaware he thought of much else other than electricity and magnetism, certainly no sign of an interest in philosophy or world affairs.

www.campaignforliberty.com 6Feb 7AM 102525

gulch

[Chris Grieb]

Gulch; I think it was!

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill P.; I didn't look at the website but I am not surprised. I think there is some evidence that Galt doesn't have both oars in the water but may not know he is even in a boat.

Galt; I thought Vieira looked like Dr. Simon Pritchett.

You guys give new meaning to the concept of ad hominem arguments.

Not a word about what Vieira had to say, just suggest that I may not have both oars in the water.

I did ask a question about what Vieira is suggesting but neither of you take the trouble to know what he means and what he proposes.

Notice I don't call myself galt here anymore? i wish you would address me with my gulch identity so as not to offend true Objectivists.

www.campaignforliberty.com 102434 6Feb 7AM 102525

gulch

Not exactly, gulch. I gave reasons for believing Vieira was sympathetic to a "conspiracy theory" mentality, if not a conspiracy theorist myself. Reread my brief post if you missed that, please.

Bill P

Bill P.,

You refer mainly to the other stuff on the site rather than indicating that you have read and grasped what Vieira says himself. If you are unwilling to take his ideas seriously that is up to you. I think he is knowledgeable and articulate, familiar with the law and an advocate of original intent of the Constitution. I generally value his opinion, so far more than that of others here who just cast aspersions and innuendoes.

102484; 6Feb 102525

“The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it.” –Chinese Proverb

gulch

Gulch -

When I find someone associating with purveyors of crackpot ideas as Vieira does, and a brief reading suggests that he is paranoid and perhaps a conspiracy theorist himself (Yes, I did read, quickly, the article you linked to), then the person (Vieira) doesn't deserve any further attention. One's time is finite - and if Vieira wants to be taken seriously he should disassociate from crackpots and conspiracy theorists, and express ideas with some maturity.

My brief examination suggests that he has done neither.

Bill P

[galtgulch]

<<<"Gulch -

When I find someone associating with purveyors of crackpot ideas as Vieira does, and a brief reading suggests that he is paranoid and perhaps a conspiracy theorist himself (Yes, I did read, quickly, the article you linked to), then the person (Vieira) doesn't deserve any further attention. One's time is finite - and if Vieira wants to be taken seriously he should disassociate from crackpots and conspiracy theorists, and express ideas with some maturity.

My brief examination suggests that he has done neither.

Bill P

">>>

Bill P.,

When you say: "associating with purveyors of crackpot ideas," just to whom are you referring? I have no idea who Vieira's associates are. Are you referring to the advertising on the www.newswithviews.com website? Or to the names of others there who have archives of their articles such as Devvy Kidd? You know there are probably many pseudo intellectuals in academia who consider Ayn Rand to be a paranoid crackpot too. We know better than that. I see this argument of yours to be ad hominem at best.

Then you go on to say: "a brief reading suggests that he is paranoid." Guess what, they are coming to get us!

www.campaignforliberty.com 7Feb 7AM 102649

gulch

Edited February 7, 2009 by galtgulch

[Alfonso Jones]

<<<"Gulch -

When I find someone associating with purveyors of crackpot ideas as Vieira does, and a brief reading suggests that he is paranoid and perhaps a conspiracy theorist himself (Yes, I did read, quickly, the article you linked to), then the person (Vieira) doesn't deserve any further attention. One's time is finite - and if Vieira wants to be taken seriously he should disassociate from crackpots and conspiracy theorists, and express ideas with some maturity.

My brief examination suggests that he has done neither.

Bill P

">>>

Bill P.,

When you say: "associating with purveyors of crackpot ideas," just to whom are you referring? I have no idea who Vieira's associates are. Are you referring to the advertising on the www.newswithviews.com website? Or to the names of others there who have archives of their articles such as Devvy Kidd? You know there are probably many pseudo intellectuals in academia who consider Ayn Rand to be a paranoid crackpot too. We know better than that. I see this argument of yours to be ad hominem at best.

Then you go on to say: "a brief reading suggests that he is paranoid." Guess what, they are coming to get us!

gulch

Gulch -

I am talking about the people who produce the products which are sold at the website to which you sent us.

You are free to call the argument "ad hominem" if you please.

Let's take a parallel but different situation: I doubt that you would spend much time investing the credibility of the claims of someone who was a holocaust denier or sold books by holocaust deniers, would you? Or someone who was a member of the KKK or sold books by high officials in the KKK? The evidence that Vieira embraces crackpot ideas is pretty clear from the site you have provided to us. I'm not going to spend a lot of time other than one quick read in which I found silly and invalid argumentation investigating Vieira's thought. Life is short, and too short to spend on investing someone's views when they are presented in the environment and by the means Vieira is.

Bill P

[galtgulch]

<<<"Gulch -

When I find someone associating with purveyors of crackpot ideas as Vieira does, and a brief reading suggests that he is paranoid and perhaps a conspiracy theorist himself (Yes, I did read, quickly, the article you linked to), then the person (Vieira) doesn't deserve any further attention. One's time is finite - and if Vieira wants to be taken seriously he should disassociate from crackpots and conspiracy theorists, and express ideas with some maturity.

My brief examination suggests that he has done neither.

Bill P

">>>

Bill P.,

When you say: "associating with purveyors of crackpot ideas," just to whom are you referring? I have no idea who Vieira's associates are. Are you referring to the advertising on the www.newswithviews.com website? Or to the names of others there who have archives of their articles such as Devvy Kidd? You know there are probably many pseudo intellectuals in academia who consider Ayn Rand to be a paranoid crackpot too. We know better than that. I see this argument of yours to be ad hominem at best.

Then you go on to say: "a brief reading suggests that he is paranoid." Guess what, they are coming to get us!

gulch

Gulch -

I am talking about the people who produce the products which are sold at the website to which you sent us.

You are free to call the argument "ad hominem" if you please.

Let's take a parallel but different situation: I doubt that you would spend much time investing the credibility of the claims of someone who was a holocaust denier or sold books by holocaust deniers, would you? Or someone who was a member of the KKK or sold books by high officials in the KKK? The evidence that Vieira embraces crackpot ideas is pretty clear from the site you have provided to us. I'm not going to spend a lot of time other than one quick read in which I found silly and invalid argumentation investigating Vieira's thought. Life is short, and too short to spend on investing someone's views when they are presented in the environment and by the means Vieira is.

Bill P

Bill P. ,

There are quite a few writers who are on the list along with Edwin Vieira, Jr. and Devvy Kidd. I even found Sam Blumenfeld on there. I know him personally and know that he did some impressive research into the origins of the public school system in Massachusetts.

These people who are listed on newswithviews site are not kooks.

I am just sorry you have taken that approach and are unwilling to discuss the arguments Vieira mentions in his article posted there. Instead you just say he might be a conspiracy nut and suspect he is paranoid.

Not to mention that your rant discourages anyone else here from reading Vieira's article and making up their own minds.

Have a nice day.

gulch

[Alfonso Jones]

<<<"Gulch -

When I find someone associating with purveyors of crackpot ideas as Vieira does, and a brief reading suggests that he is paranoid and perhaps a conspiracy theorist himself (Yes, I did read, quickly, the article you linked to), then the person (Vieira) doesn't deserve any further attention. One's time is finite - and if Vieira wants to be taken seriously he should disassociate from crackpots and conspiracy theorists, and express ideas with some maturity.

My brief examination suggests that he has done neither.

Bill P

">>>

Bill P.,

When you say: "associating with purveyors of crackpot ideas," just to whom are you referring? I have no idea who Vieira's associates are. Are you referring to the advertising on the www.newswithviews.com website? Or to the names of others there who have archives of their articles such as Devvy Kidd? You know there are probably many pseudo intellectuals in academia who consider Ayn Rand to be a paranoid crackpot too. We know better than that. I see this argument of yours to be ad hominem at best.

Then you go on to say: "a brief reading suggests that he is paranoid." Guess what, they are coming to get us!

gulch

Gulch -

I am talking about the people who produce the products which are sold at the website to which you sent us.

You are free to call the argument "ad hominem" if you please.

Let's take a parallel but different situation: I doubt that you would spend much time investing the credibility of the claims of someone who was a holocaust denier or sold books by holocaust deniers, would you? Or someone who was a member of the KKK or sold books by high officials in the KKK? The evidence that Vieira embraces crackpot ideas is pretty clear from the site you have provided to us. I'm not going to spend a lot of time other than one quick read in which I found silly and invalid argumentation investigating Vieira's thought. Life is short, and too short to spend on investing someone's views when they are presented in the environment and by the means Vieira is.

Bill P

Bill P. ,

There are quite a few writers who are on the list along with Edwin Vieira, Jr. and Devvy Kidd. I even found Sam Blumenfeld on there. I know him personally and know that he did some impressive research into the origins of the public school system in Massachusetts.

These people who are listed on newswithviews site are not kooks.

I am just sorry you have taken that approach and are unwilling to discuss the arguments Vieira mentions in his article posted there. Instead you just say he might be a conspiracy nut and suspect he is paranoid.

Not to mention that your rant discourages anyone else here from reading Vieira's article and making up their own minds.

Have a nice day.

gulch

Gulch -

You seem to be either unable or unwilling to get the point. Vieira is raving.

Here's a quote from the Vieira piece you linked to:

After all, the bail-outs constitute only the political-cum-financial crime families’ “Plan A”. “Plan B” would have come into play had the bail-outs been rejected, the financial markets collapsed, and America been hurled into economic, political, and social chaos as a result (and remains ready for that eventuality in the future). It calls for the imposition of a para-militarized national police state controlled by the Department of Homeland Security. So, the crime families were set up to win no matter what happened: If Americans did not roll over for financial fascism in the form of bail-outs today, they would be confronted with the jack-booted variety in the form of black-uniformed, beetle-browed thugs toting machine guns throughout their towns tomorrow.

Then, after a sufficient interval of impoverishment and oppression, hunger and humiliation, Americans would be offered “Plan C”. It promises both a new, “stable” currency—the Amero (or whatever they end up calling it)—in exchange for Americans’ worthless Federal Reserve Notes, and relaxation of the worst of the police-state brutality accompanying the implementation of “Plan B”. But it also requires Americans to surrender their sovereignty to the supra-national North American Union (or some other entity of that ilk)—which will mark the end of the line for this country.

In your opinion is this sensible commentary? "Imposition of a para-militarized national police state controlled by the Department of Homeland Security?" Evidence of the existence of this plan, please. Actual documentation of SOME KIND will be appreciated by the readers of this thread.

The stuff about "the Amero" --- got some documentation of this?

I'm certain the readers of the threat will be interested in the actual documentation which supports the existence of "Plan B" and "Plan C." As much as I abhor "Plan A," I don't see the evidence of the existence of Plans B or C.

Bill P

[galtgulch]

Gulch -

You seem to be either unable or unwilling to get the point. Vieira is raving.

Here's a quote from the Vieira piece you linked to:

After all, the bail-outs constitute only the political-cum-financial crime families’ “Plan A”. “Plan B” would have come into play had the bail-outs been rejected, the financial markets collapsed, and America been hurled into economic, political, and social chaos as a result (and remains ready for that eventuality in the future). It calls for the imposition of a para-militarized national police state controlled by the Department of Homeland Security. So, the crime families were set up to win no matter what happened: If Americans did not roll over for financial fascism in the form of bail-outs today, they would be confronted with the jack-booted variety in the form of black-uniformed, beetle-browed thugs toting machine guns throughout their towns tomorrow.

Then, after a sufficient interval of impoverishment and oppression, hunger and humiliation, Americans would be offered “Plan C”. It promises both a new, “stable” currency—the Amero (or whatever they end up calling it)—in exchange for Americans’ worthless Federal Reserve Notes, and relaxation of the worst of the police-state brutality accompanying the implementation of “Plan B”. But it also requires Americans to surrender their sovereignty to the supra-national North American Union (or some other entity of that ilk)—which will mark the end of the line for this country.

In your opinion is this sensible commentary? "Imposition of a para-militarized national police state controlled by the Department of Homeland Security?" Evidence of the existence of this plan, please. Actual documentation of SOME KIND will be appreciated by the readers of this thread.

The stuff about "the Amero" --- got some documentation of this?

I'm certain the readers of the threat will be interested in the actual documentation which supports the existence of "Plan B" and "Plan C." As much as I abhor "Plan A," I don't see the evidence of the existence of Plans B or C.

Bill P

Bill P.,

I see what you mean and i felt the same way when I read it myself. But you suggest Vieira is a "raving" madman and I see him more as the guy who cried wolf in the fairy tale. The trouble may simply be that we tend to ignore his "raving" because it sounds so outrageous, e.g. Plan B and Plan C. reference to "the crime families." I did recently read that troops were being stationed in the country and retrained in crowd control or the like as if the powers that be, meaning the Democrats in Congress proposing the bailouts, might have feared an uprising among the citizenry. There was also all that talk about a North American Alliance of Canada, America and Mexico in which the U.S. would give up its sovereignty to a supranational power. Don't get me wrong. I am not in favor of any of this and I have no idea whether there is any truth to any of it. i wouldn't know where to begin to look to see if there was any such thing over the horizon.

But look what Vieira goes on to recommend:

<<<"Well, then, assuming that it may be wise for Americans temporarily to acquiesce in “Plan A”, what should they do during the period of time their acquiescence will buy? Why not revitalize “the Militia of the several States”, which the Constitution declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”—and never more necessary than right now? Why not, indeed? What else can America do that could be more important for her survival as “a free State”? If someone can propose any other course of action capable of mobilizing tens of millions of Americans for collective action with full constitutional authority, and outside of the phoney “two” political parties and the Establishment’s other political control-mechanisms, please speak up now, or forever hold your peace. Because time is fast running out, even as you read these words.

Perhaps now, as the bills for a “funny-money” economy start coming due in the form of serial gargantuan bail-outs, you are becoming sorry that quite some time ago, when certain columns posted on NewsWithViews.com proposed revitalization of the Militia as the number-one priority in this age of collapsing monetary and banking systems, you yawned and went back to sleep.

It is useless to be sorry at this juncture. Now is the time for action while the window of opportunity still remains open—so that you will not have to be even sorrier in the future.">>>

Don't say I didn't warn you! Rand once wrote something in which she asked, "who will protect us from our protectors?" to paraphrase.

I certainly don't trust our government if only because it continues to help itself to the money I earn year after year. Not to mention that it no longer plays by the rules in that they don't take their oath to uphold the Constitution seriously, e.g. coin money!

In the meantime I continue to urge people I meet to join www.campaignforliberty.com and I am comforted to know that 90% of Americans own guns.

7Feb 11PM 102720

To reiterate. I think we should take Vieira seriously. I have precious little time to explore such matters. i am still working more than full time and my wife begrudges any time I spent on this computer. I will try to look up earlier articles Vieira refers to at www.newswithviews.com

I hope you are right and there is nothing to worry about aside from something approaching hyperinflation and more govt interventions but not tanks rolling up Main St and soldiers in jackboots and assault rifles rounding us up for questioning. It might just be my Jewish heritage. I would rather be too paranoid rather than not paranoid enough.

gulch