Report This Post

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of Free to Choose Network

A beautiful, informative full length documentary from 2007:

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

THE LIFE AND IDEAS OF

MILTON FRIEDMAN

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Date: Monday August 20 2012

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234.

6.30 PM: Doors Open.

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Braised Lamb Chops in Rich Tomato Gravy: $12

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion.

Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.45 PM: End of meeting.

Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Excerpt from description by Free to Choose Network:

The Story

The amazing life story of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman can be completely and effectively told only when integrated with stories of the impact of his ideas … in the United States and throughout the world.

No one person in the 20th century had such an impact on economic thinking worldwide, as has Milton Friedman. Yet his is a most unlikely story that he credits, in large measure, to “luck.”

The Production

Much of the material in this new and exclusive documentary is based on Milton and Rose Friedman’s 1998 memoir: Two Lucky People.

To make this program, the producers have been given exclusive access to the Friedmans and to their personal archive of historic material.

… An extensive search through the historical archive has yielded a treasure trove of materials on the Friedmans’ public life as well as many of their private moments.

A biography of Nobel laureate Milton Friedman cannot be complete, however, without an exploration of his science and of the impact of his ideas on the world stage. To this end, the producers (travel) to Estonia, Chile, England, and throughout the United States to tell this story.

Tease

Rising like a phoenix from a troubled past, entrepreneurs have turned Chile’s rich Colchagua Valley into one of the world’s great economic miracles. Chilean wines now compete in the world market. Wine and ingenuity have made Don Melchor a very wealthy man.

But if you think Chile is an unlikely locale for entrepreneurial success in the 21st century — consider Estonia, until recently part of the Soviet Union.

Economies all over the world are feeling the impact of free markets.

The world of the 21st century is a world of international markets interconnecting people everywhere — people who have never met, yet inadvertently have become integral to each other’s well being. The genie is out of the bottle. Every minute of every day products from all over the world are moving in perpetual motion.

… All of these things reflect the economics of choice, the economics of individual freedom that have changed and are continuing to change the world in which we live. Still, individual freedom of choice can spark heated protest in the United States and around the world.

For nearly a century one controversial American has championed the idea that only through economic freedom and the rule of law will lead inevitably to political freedom. His has been a commitment to truth — not as he has imagined it, but as he has found it in the world around him.

The rise of a global economy through free markets has underscored the power of his ideas — the power of choice.

No one has been a greater proponent of individual freedom and individual choice than Milton Friedman, teacher, scientist and author, revolutionary intellectual, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics, and citizen of the world.

This is his story, including the impact of his ideas upon people the world over.

Included in the program are exclusive appearances by

• Alan Greenspan
• Paul Samuelson
• Thomas Sowell
• Martin Anderson
• Gary Becker
• Milton and Rose Friedman.

Report This Post

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of the Institute for Humane Studies

A filmed talk by Dr. Nigel Ashford

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Schools of Thought in
Classical Liberalism

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Date: Monday August 20 2012

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234.

6.30 PM: Doors Open.

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12
• Chicken Kiev: $12
• Gourmet Steak & Vegetable pies: $5 each

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion.

Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.30 PM: End of meeting.

Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Five broad Schools of Thought are explored by Dr. Nigel Ashford:

• Milton Friedman and the Chicago School
• Public Choice Theory
• Austrian School (eg. Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek)
• Natural Rights (eg. Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick)
• Anarcho-Capitalism (eg. Murray Rothbard, David Friedman)

Dr. Nigel Ashford

Report This Post

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

In Celebration of Milton Friedman’s 100th Birthday

With the kind permission of the Free To Choose Network

* * * * * * * * * * *

1. The Power of the Market (1990)

2. The Tyranny of Control (1990)

* * * * * * * * * * *

Date: Monday August 06 2012

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234.

6.30 PM: Doors Open.

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion.

Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.45 PM: End of meeting.

Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

In Hong Kong for “The Power of the Market” Milton Friedman says …

This thriving, bustling, dynamic city, has been made possible by the free market –indeed the freest market in the world.

The free market enables people to go into any industry that they want; to trade with whomever they want; to buy in the cheapest market around the world; to sell in the dearest around the world. But most important of all, if they fail, they bear the cost.

If they succeed, they get the benefit and it’s that atmosphere of incentive that has induced them to work, to adjust, to save, to produce a miracle. This miracle hasn’t been achieved by government action — by someone sitting in one of those tall buildings and telling people what to do.

It’s been achieved by allowing the market to work. Walk down any street in Hong Kong and you will see the impersonal forces of the market in operation.

Milton Friedman speaking in “The Tyranny of Control” ….

When Adam Smith published The Wealth Of Nations, Britain was still a largely rural and placid place. But the Industrial Revolution was already getting started and standards of life were beginning to rise.

One obstacle was that trade with other nations was still tightly controlled. Merchants in the home market had persuaded the government of the day to impose heavy duties and taxes on all foreign imports in order to insure themselves a protected market.

One of the results was to turn Britain into a nation of lawbreakers.

Smuggling was a national past time: brandy, wines, tobacco, anything with a heavy customs duty on it. For years, the revenue men fought a losing battle along the shores and inlets of the British Isles.

In 1846, after years of argument and partial success, the followers of Adam Smith finally persuaded the British Parliament to remove all duties on goods imported from abroad. Britain embarked on complete free trade, giving a further push to the rising standard of life.

What happened in Britain as a consequence of releasing the tremendous force of self-interest, had the unintended effect of benefiting millions of people all over the world …

Free trade enabled Britain to become the work place of the world.

 …

Report This Post

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of filmmaker, Janks Morton, and IYAGO ENTERTAINMENT GROUP , present the

Australian Premiere of

* * * * * * * * * * *

WHAT BLACK MEN THINK

* * * * * * * * * * *

Date: Monday July 23 2012 Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234. 6.30 PM: Doors Open. Meals(all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion. Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.45 PM: End of meeting. Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

About ….

In this … provocative film … Janks Morton presents a searing examination of the role that myths, stereotypes and misrepresentations have played in the decimation of modern era black relationships, and how the symbiotic relationship between government, the media and black leadership perpetuates misinformation to further marginalize the role of black men in society.

Since the triumphs of the civil rights legislations of the early 1960′s havoc and decimation has been wreaked on the Black family with a specific devastation on the Black man. With negative imagery of the media, the failed policy of the great society and modern era black leadership abandoning tenets that historically held the community together, a new form of mental slavery has perpetuated an undeclared civil war in the Black Community …

Excerpt of Review from AFRO.COM via Jank Morton’s blog

“Out of all the ethnic groups, Black people, and especially Black men, are the most ana­lyzed, arranged and assessed. Assorted, base lined, cataloged …categorized, classified, char­acterized … sliced, diced and divided … dissected, evaluated and examined … focused upon, fixated on and extrapolated … investigated, indexed and inspected … juggled, judged and labeled … meas­ured, numbered and ordered.., sorted, studied and surveyed … totaled, tabulated and tat­tooed … “

 - Excerpt from Janks Morton’s What Black Men Think

What do Black men think? What goes through their minds when they learn they are the topic of discussions across the globe, for all the wrong reasons?

What do they think about how Black women see them as dogs, incapable of love and taking responsibility… as cheaters? What do Black men think about how the media plays up their seemingly interminable presence in the penal system, the stereotypes about their sexuality, the Black leadership that claims to represent them? What are Black men thinking?

Black Men address all these issues and more in Janks Morton’s new “docu-logue” style film What Black Men Think.

This movie intends not to throw any more salt on the open wound we call Black America by highlighting grim statistics or sensationaliz­ing miscreant behavior as the agenda-setting media blatantly does, but rather Morton’s inten­tions are to strike up a conversation within the Black community – especially between Black men and Black women – and to set the record straight about Black men once and for all.

Morton has captured “candid conversations” and enlightening commentary of Black men, from the block to the board room, speaking their minds on topics ranging from education, interracial relationships, Black male identity, to Black male homosexuality and the so-called Black leadership that has bamboozled the entire community.

“I believe there are people profiting off of keeping Black men and Black women divided,” said Morton. The media is constantly bombard­ing us with [these] images and this informa­tion …our perceptions are slightly askew from what reality is….

“What Black Men Think ends a double dose of reality by revealing the true statistics about the Black community-like what really is the number one killer of Blacks, who really is to blame for Black women being infected HIV at alarming rates and if there are really more Black men in’ jail than in college. Morton and others like Armstrong Williams, former Maryland lieu­tenant governor Michael Steele, Dr. Alvin Poussaint, spoken word artist Taalam Acey and actor and activist Joseph C. Phillips also look to the historical events to explain what has ushered the Black man into the state that he’s in today still fighting,, still struggling to prove his worth not only to his family and community, but to himself. These are issues that are still hushed in Black America-problems that Blacks, according to Morton, are too stuck in denial to address.

“Under our breaths …and deep down in our hearts, we’re saying these things, but no one is challenging us to do better and that’s really what the film is saying, `we have to do better together,’ look at each other for who we are and get our families back together,” said Morton.

“Black men are making a comeback,” he insists. All it takes is for people to “wake up,” snap out of denial and actively search for a solution, said Morton. A solution in which he asserts has been “right under our noses” all along.

“The answer is so simple; it just eludes us at times. But really it’s about the restoration of Black men. … restore his roles of what he’s sup­pose to be to his family and then the family falls in line with the community. It’s just that simple,” offered the 43-year-old single parent.

Raw energy, mind-boggling revelations, his­tory lessons and intimate, thought-provoking dialogue makes, “What Black Men Think,” a must see for any and everyone ready to not only see the change, but be the change in the Black community.

Throughout the movie Morton stresses that the Black man has to take the first steps toward change, “Black men have got to stand up and stand tall and really come correct.

Report This Post

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of the CATO Institute & C-Span

A filmed talk by Dr Nicholas Philipson given in January 2011 on:

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Adam Smith:
An Enlightened Life
(With some comments by Professor James R Otteson, Yeshiva University)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Date: Monday July 16 2012

Nicholas Philipson talks about his book Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life (Yale University Press, 2010), an intellectual biography of Scottish philosopher Adam Smith (1723-1790).

The author examines Smith’s philosophical and economic thinking and explores not only his best known work, The Wealth of Nations, which popularized the notion of the “invisible hand” of the market and shaped modern economics, but also Smith’s other great work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments.

Nicholas Philipson is joined in conversation by James Otteson, author of Adam Smith’s Marketplace of Life.

Excerpts from a review of Dr Philipson’s book (on which this talk is based) by the man I consider to be the world’s foremost Adam Smith scholar, Dr Gavin Kennedy:

PRODOS & Colleagues had the honour of meeting Dr Gavin Kennedy in Melbourne in 2010. Below is an excerpt of Dr Kennedy's review of Nicholas Philipson's book.

Phillipson’s is an intellectual biography – the history of Smith’s startling ideas – carefully developed over his lifetime and their germination from Smith’s solid grasp of the work of those who preceded him, particularly David Hume, whose ideas he applied and developed, but also the never to be forgotten, Francis Hutcheson …

It is not just a talented account of Smith’s ideas. Phillipson delves into their development, taking just enough space to keep his theme of their evolution rolling along at a non-exhausting page-turning pace.

And in the background, all the time, is the ever-present brave mood of (The) Enlightenment in struggle with the cloying embrace of theological superstition, under the watchful eyes, and lurid imaginations, of the Presbyterian zealots, and to be fair, of the timid and intimidated Presbyterian Moderates who, privately, knew better but remained silent in public …

From the beginning at the local Kirkcaldy school, Smith’s aptitude for the Latin and Greek classics prepared him for the more arduous work he undertook at the Universities of Glasgow (tutored by talented teachers such as Professors Hutcheson on moral philosophy, Simson on mathematics, and Dick on Newtonian physics) …

It was at Oxford from around 1744 (when 21 years-old) that he started his ‘intended juvenile essay’ on the History of Astronomy that displayed his budding genius for philosophy, both moral and natural.

In the clearest terms, Phillipson places the ideas in this early work on the ‘origins of philosophical thought’ in the ‘psychological need to explain the unexpected, to soothe the imagination and to restore the mind to a state of order and tranquillity’ …

Smith explained that only when men had some ‘security and leisure to reflect on the world’ could they ‘attend to the train of events which passes around them’. Meanwhile, they would cower in frightful superstition and fear at everything they could not understand, until they could seek ‘the invisible chains which bind together all these disjoined objects’ so as to ‘… render the theatre of nature a more coherent and therefore a more magnificent spectacle’. Knowledge grew slowly and the remnants of ignorance, accompanied by imaginary and invisible polytheistic gods and ‘pusillanimous superstition’ …

However, Smith’s moral philosophy is a deeper analysis of real morality – and potential for humanisation – through the device of an ‘imaginary man within the breast’ – the impartial spectator – and more convincing to contemporary readers in and beyond 1759. It made Smith’s reputation in Scotland and England, and to some extent in France.

It was the latter country that entered Smith’s life and exposed him to company of the French Physiocrats around Quesnay and others. Before he met them (1764-6) Smith had developed and finalised many of his early ideas in political economy …

His contact with the Physiocrats and others did not teach him his economics. He listened, admired their ideas (but not those of ‘laissez-faire’), and severely criticised their major error, as he saw it, of the primacy of agriculture as the sole productive driver of the economy and their outright dismissal of commercial industry as ‘sterile’ …

…

Report This Post

Perdie Across America

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of filmmaker, Matthew Perdie, the

Australian Premiere

of the first part of his inspiring and delightful documentary series:

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

PERDIE ACROSS AMERICA
Part One

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Perdie Across America

Date: Monday July 02 2012

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234.

6.30 PM: Doors Open.

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion.

Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.45 PM: End of meeting.

Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Matthew Perdie

Excerpt from documentary’s blurb:

Perdie Across America is a live-action documentary series about one man’s walk across the United States of America to bring awareness to the dangers of massive government growth and spending, by both the previous and current administrations. He walks from coast to coast, hoping to inspire people to pay closer attention to the tyrannical and oppressive acts committed by the US Government. His hope is that awareness to these issues will result in a reversal of the unconstitutional crimes committed against the American people.”

On June 22nd 2009, Matthew Perdie (23 years of age at the time) began his walk from the coast of Long Island, New York, to the coast of Santa Monica, CA. Along the way he filmed his experiences in an effort to show people the things that inspired him to fight harder for his cause.

The purpose of this series is to “provoke questioning of the dangers of massive government expansion, while acknowledging the principles and virtuous behavior that are necessary for the survival of a free Constitutional Republic.”

Perdie believes that for as long as the American people apathetically accept tyranny, things such as poverty, oppression, and the compression of individual will shall always be a reality in the United States.

By sharing his experiences, and relating them to the principles that he holds dear, Perdie hopes to show people the principles that are necessary to restore the free market system, and a country free from oppression and tyranny.

Matthew Perdie: "I need to see this through"

…

Report This Post

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of Producer, Curtis Bowers,
his controversial 2010 documentary:

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

AGENDA:
Grinding America Down

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Date: Monday June 04 2012

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234.

6.30 PM: Doors Open.

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12
• Chicken Schnitzel: $12

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion.

Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.45 PM: End of meeting.

Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Curtis Bowers, Producer, AGENDA: GRINDING AMERICA DOWN

This is the letter to the editor that Curtis Bowers, then  Idaho representative from District 10, wrote in January 2008.

It was the enormous reaction he got to this letter — among other things, accusing him of “hate speech” — that inspired him to make this film:

The start of a new year is always a time of reflection as we learn from the past and prepare for the future. An unusual opportunity I had years ago is especially significant today, in light of the many issues facing Americans.

In 1992 I read that the Communist Party USA was gathering at the University of California, Berkeley. I was curious to see what they had to say about the Berlin Wall coming down and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Would they give up, or did they have a different approach? I decided to go and find out.

I assumed it would be a bunch of radical college students, so to fit the part, I grew a goatee, got a revolutionary T-shirt and put on some ratty jeans. After getting checked into my dorm room on campus, I went over to the conference hall for the first meeting. I was amazed to see a room filled with 50-, 60- and 70-year-old men and women, professionally dressed with their briefcases.

For the next several days I listened, took notes and talked to the leadership. The plan they unfolded had nothing to do with guns, bombs or violence. They acknowledged their disappointment with what had happened in the Soviet Union but felt they could still “take America down.” This time, instead of using force from the outside, they would use public policy from the inside.

They had a three part agenda. They would use their manpower, influence and funds to back anything that would destroy our families, businesses and culture.

Firstly, to destroy the family, they would promote co-habitation instead of marriage. They would also try to get children away from their mothers into government programs at the earliest age possible. They felt the best way to do this was to promote the feminist movement, which had been very effective at making women discontent with marriage and motherhood.

Secondly, to destroy businesses, they aimed to wipe out the profit potential that motivated people to start them. If people couldn’t make good money off their ideas and hard work, they would eventually be content working for someone else. They were sure the environmental movement (modest at the time) was the only vehicle capable of creating enough regulation and expense to discourage business growth.

Finally, to destroy our culture, they needed us to abandon our heritage of religion and morality. They believed the homosexual movement, if accepted, would begin to effectively extinguish these values.

At the time they laid out this strategy, I wasn’t overly impressed. It seemed very unrealistic and certainly not something to worry about in my lifetime. Yet as I sit in my office, recall their plan and consider where America is today, I am shocked.

Our first woman presidential candidate talks about how degrading it is to be a stay-at-home mom. Businesses are closing down or moving daily to other countries because environmental regulations are too excessive to make a profit. And legislation is being considered in Washington, D.C. that makes it a crime to discuss in public any opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. As the old advertisement said, “You’ve come a long way, baby!”

When we see many mainstream politicians and activist judges with the same agenda that just 16 years ago was that of Communist strategists, it is time for patriotic Americans to wake up and get involved.

Interviewed in this documentary:

• Dr. E. Calvin Beisner
• Dr. Jim Bowers
• Dr. Robert Chandler
• Beverley Eakman
• M. Stanton Evans
• Bryan Fischer
• Dr. David Gibbs
• Jr., Brannon Howse
• Cliff Kincaid
• Congressman Steve King
• Ed Meese lll
• Dr. David Noebel
• Hon. Howard Phillips
• Janet (Folger) Porter
• Sen. H.L. Richardson
• Phyllis Schafly
• Jim Simpson
• Mike Smith
• John Stormer
• Tim Wildmon
• Wendy Wright
• Trevor Loudon

Review from MovieGuide.org

… powerful exposé of the communist, socialist, progressive attempt to take over America

This is not a conspiracy documentary about a secret collusion between two or more conspirators to affect some nefarious change, but rather a clear look at the publicized agenda of the hard left and shows how they have effectively implemented that public agenda.

The documentary starts with a quote from Joseph Stalin, “America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”

Then, the documentary shows the steps the Communist Party said were necessary to destroy America’s patriotism, morality and faith. Incredibly, they were able to achieve their agenda.

This clear exposé alone makes this documentary worth watching.

More than that, the documentary presents the connections between the different communist, socialist, progressive organizations with great clarity and shows how they implemented their agenda in each area of life.

AGENDA is absolutely brilliant for its well-researched understanding of the issues.

Excerpts from NewsRealBlog‘s interview with filmmaker, Curtis Bowers:

Curtis Bowers: I wanted to make a clear distinction between this particular film, this particular subject, and a lot of the conspiracies that are out there. I think there might be a lot of weight to a lot of the conspiracy theories out there. But, when you deal in that, you lose credibility… I wanted to make sure people know this is simply the facts. It’s all in (the leftist radicals’) own words, in their own books and articles and speeches.

That’s what impacted me so much … When I started studying their own writings, their own speeches, I couldn’t believe it – that they would say so clearly what their goals were, what they were trying to do. That’s what shocked me into making the film. As I studied, I’d go “People need to know about this.”

This isn’t opinions or feelings or hopes or wishes or whatever. This is a reality that is destroying our country, and we don’t even seem to acknowledge that it exists …

NRB: … You were asked by a friend and writer to go attend a Communist party meeting, and this was back in 1992. Can you tell us a little bit about what you encountered there?

Bowers: I was in graduate school, and I thought it would be fun to go and hear what they had to say. I was not into it for the content of it. I was simply doing someone a favor. In my own eyes I thought this would be a really neat experience. Not really paying that much attention (at first), I assumed it would be a bunch of college radicals.

I grew a goatee and had ratty jeans on and had a revolutionary t-shirt on (i.e. trying to fit in). And I stuck out like a sore thumb … I looked like an idiot. It wasn’t that element. It wasn’t college radicals. It was all adults for the most part, and older adults – 50, 60, 70 year olds.

That’s when the light went on, I was shocked … I did not expect the seriousness, the backroom meetings – they had all these different breakout sessions. Some of these I would go into. And the passion of these older men up there that were so discouraged by what had happened to the Soviet Union, and they’d say, “But we can still do this. We can still –” They would talk about this like a preacher would talk about the principles of the Bible or something. They believed this.

Just like Whittaker Chambers – who wrote the book Witness which is one of my favorite books … it made me realize there are some that have bought into the cause, maybe naively, not understanding the end result. They believe that this is going to bring about a one-world utopia where it’s going to benefit everybody. I was there and I was convinced that some people really do believe that. They’re not the evil people that know that the end result is just greedy lust for power and don’t care what happens to all the masses.

I can still picture this one old man. I don’t even know who he was, but he was talking (to the group). He said he had been a member since the 1930’s. He’d been a member of the Communist Party since he was a young man. He was probably in his late 70’s, and his whole life had been focused on the communist movement. It kind of shook me up when I saw how serious and how committed he was and passionate about those principles.

NRB: You talk about a connection – obviously, Karl Marx first germinated the philosophy which we’ve come to know as communism. But you talk about the connection between him and Darwin and Nietzsche – the theory of evolution and the idea that there is no God, that God is dead – these two ideas, as you state in the film, are kind of a necessary precursor to embracing Marxism. You spoke of that older man who spoke with such passion and reminded you of a preacher. There’s definitely a spiritual component to this thing isn’t there?

Bowers: Oh, absolutely. It is their religion. What you believe is your religion. That’s why even humanism is considered a religion in America – they get a tax exemption for being a religious organization, the humanist groups throughout America … That’s what their faith is in. Their faith is in man. They think man will naturally rise to the highest level possible within a perfect – what they claim to be perfect – communist society, where everything is equally shared and everyone equally does their work.

I don’t think the top people naively believe that. I think they know – anyone who studies history knows that does not happen. Anyone who reads the daily newspaper knows that is not what man is like. Man always goes to the lowest common denominator unless he is in a society that is demanding more of him, and he’s being raised with character –

NRB: That’s just it though, isn’t it? The two fundamental ideas that are really butting heads here, if you trace it back far enough …

It’s about the nature of man. On the one hand, man is an emergent evolving being on the path toward some sort of perfection. And then on the other hand, the perspective that Christianity espouses, and Judaism as well, (is) that man is fallen, that man is sinful, that man suffers from a kind of moral retardation and, as a result, is never going to be particularly good. Those fundamental beliefs really do inform our political paradigm, don’t they?

Bowers: Yes, and that’s why – back to what you were talking about with Darwin and Nietzsche – that’s why they’re so important. America’s whole foundation was completely different.

It was all, for the first time in world history, “No, no. Our rights come from God.” That’s why no man, no government can take them away. That whole principle, it began with America – the first time it was tried at that level where government was under the people. People were over the government. And the reason they were was because they said, “The rights you have are from God.” Therefore they cannot be tampered with by anyone for any reason.

Of course, Marx and all them – that’s a disaster, because they want to be on top. They want a society where man is god.

So, if God’s in the picture, it destroys their entire ideology, their entire philosophy of what they’re trying to do. And that’s why they have been in such a battle to remove God, and specifically the God of the Bible. They don’t seem to have a huge problem with the other world religions. It’s just the God of the Bible, I think, because of His very clear laws and rules and the way He set up things orderly. The family is supposed to be ordered this way, and society is supposed to be ordered this way, and morality is this … That’s the scary thing. If there was no God, if He was taken out of the equation, who is to say what you can do or not? …

Note from PRODOS: The film opens with a quote attributed to Stalin:

America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.

However, there is no evidence that Stalin ever wrote this.

There is also a quote used, which is attributed to Lenin:

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted

I haven’t been able to verify this one either.

Speaking of misattributed Lenin quotes, here’s a common one:

We will hang the capitalists with the rope that they sell us

…

Report This Post

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of David Horowitz Television

A filmed panel discussion, packed with intellectual ammo, featuring

Frank Gaffney, Robert Spencer, Daniel Greenfield,  Raymond Ibrahim

Discussing:

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The Islamists Within

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Date: Monday May 28 2012

Report This Post

Drew Carey

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of
Izzit.org and Reason TV

A set of 8 short documentaries investigating free market principles
and policies and the effects of undermining them.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The Drew Carey Project
Parts 1 & 2 

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The free market works!

Date: Monday May 21 2012

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234.

6.30 PM: Doors Open.

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12
• Chicken Schnitzel: $12

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion.

Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.30 PM: End of meeting.

Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Separate the state from the economy!

Description by Producer

Ever think that the government doesn’t know best? Can the news media always be counted on to get the story straight? Drew Carey hosts four teaching videos that challenge some commonly held assumptions.

1.) Traffic Gridlock highlights innovative private-sector solutions to the problem of traffic congestion. How does a speedy trip on the “Drew Carey Freeway” sound? How about a helicopter ride to work?

2.) Living Large challenges the claim that the American middle class is being squeezed. The media and politicians tell us that it’s all doom and gloom for those of us who are neither millionaires nor welfare cases. What do you think?

3.) Dance Ban is a modern-day “Footloose” story. In Arizona, a steak house featuring live music went into business. Then the county officials invoked an ordinance that banned dancing. So go ahead and eat – but watch that toe-tapping!

4.) Officials in National City (California), a predominantly Hispanic community, pushed to tear down an athletic center for struggling kids to make way for luxury condos. Why would they do that?

5.) Food Fight investigates how licensing affects entrepreneurship on the streets of Los Angeles. In downtown LA, people are hungry for the local delicacy – bacon dogs. But selling them can land street vendors in jail. Take a trip with Drew Carey into the black market world of selling bacon dogs.

6.) Kidneys for Sale tackles the controversial topic of organ donation. Each year in the U.S., thousands of people die while on the waiting list for a kidney. What if donors could be paid?

7.) Throw Pillow Fight challenges a growing licensing movement in the field of interior design. Do decorating decisions affect the health, welfare, and safety of consumers? Can unlicensed interior designers put your life at risk?

8.) Who benefits from Agricultural Subsidies? Some argue that agricultural subsidies are necessary to protect America’s farmers and ensure a steady food supply. Critics say U.S. farm programs cost taxpayers billions each year, significantly raise the price of commodities, undermine world trade agreements, and contribute to the suffering of poor farmers around the world.

John Stossel interviews Drew Carey …

…

Report This Post

Teddy Bobo Film Club: Think Outside the Screen ™

The non-profit, volunteer-run Teddy Bobo Film Club will hold its 17th series of short films + constructive thinking skills, this Friday evening (March 18 2012) in Richmond (Melbourne, Australia).

To each short film we screen and study, we’ll be applying the Edward de Bono method known as: SIX THINKING HATS.

The Format

Over the course of 135 briskly paced minutes …

1. Entertainment: A number of very short (under 3 minutes) films, videos, and film excerpts from vastly different genres are screened.
2. Film appreciation: After each film, there is a brief period of open-ended study and discussion of the film – its background, the purpose it is meant to serve, what makes it distinctive, its production values, any curious observations, appreciation of its art and technology, etc.
   We call this segment “think inside the screen”.
3. Thinking skill: Then, bouncing off some aspect of the film, a simple, tightly-focused thinking exercise is introduced by Coach Prodos. Each exercise uses one of the formal lateral thinking and constructive thinking methods developed by Edward de Bono.
   This is the think outside the screen™ segment. The exercises we do are not puzzles. They are not IQ games. They are not “positive thinking”. They’re simple, tried and true, practical methods which, as you practice, will improve your constructive & creative thinking skills. Anyone can learn them — if they put in the time and  the work.

Chairman & Co-Founder: David DeLeon will be your host.

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond.

Time:

Doors open: 6.30 PM

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12
• Other selections also available at $12

Formal Start: The screen & study session begins at 7.30 PM sharp. Please make sure you arrive well before 7.30.

Finish: The meeting ends at 9.45 PM sharp.

Cost: Nil. But a donation to Coach Prodos is appreciated. Thanks.

Members only: To attend and participate you need to be a registered member of the Teddy Bobo Film Club or the guest of a registered member. If you agree with our goals and play the annual $2 joining fee, you can join on the night.

Report This Post

Alan Charles Kors : Why the collapse of Communism did not entail the end of socialism

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism

A filmed talk by Dr Alan Charles Kors

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Socialism’s Legacy

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Report This Post

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of
Executive Producer, Jordan Allott & In Altum Productions

Another powerful documentary of individuals standing against tyranny
and promoting liberty, individual rights, rule of law, limited government

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

OSCAR’S CUBA

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Date: Monday May 07 2012

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234.

6.30 PM: Doors Open.

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12
• Chicken Schnitzel: $12

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion.

Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.30 PM: End of meeting.

Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Description by Producer

OSCAR’s CUB, shot undercover in Cuba … tells the story of Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, a prisoner of conscience who until March 2011 was serving a 25-year prison sentence for the crime of “disrespecting the revolution” through his promotion of human rights, respect for life and democracy in Cuba.

Through archival footage, interviews with those close to Dr. Biscet, interviews with past Cuban political prisoners and current Cuban dissidents, as well as footage of groups and individuals who (were) working to free Dr. Biscet, OSCAR’s CUBA reveals the truth about the Cuban government’s unjust detention of Dr. Biscet and thousands of other human rights supporters.

OSCAR’s CUBA first looks back at the Cuban people’s 50 year fight for freedom, then highlights the work and vision of Dr. Biscet.

More than a newsreel piece, OSCAR’s CUBA takes a personal look, from Havana across the island to Santiago, at those who have sacrificed everything for the betterment of their nation.

While the documentary tells the truth about today’s Cuba, it also provides a hopeful look, through the eyes of its greatest present day representative and visionary, at the potential future of a free Cuba.

The OSCAR’s CUBA original score was recorded by 4-time Grammy award winning Jazz legend Arturo Sandoval.

On behalf of their father, Oscar Biscet's children accept the 2007 Presidential Medal of Freedom from U.S. President George W. Bush

In March of 2011, one year after the premiere of Oscar’s Cuba, Dr. Biscet was released from prison. On his second day out of prison Dr. Biscet and his wife, Elsa, watched Oscar’s Cuba at his home in Havana and commented, “I am very pleased and humbled by Oscar’s Cuba.” Dr. Biscet, a finalist for the 2011 Nobel Peace prize, was awarded the 2007 Presidential Medal of Freedom by U.S. President George W. Bush.

From a BBC article, March 2011 …

The Cuban government has freed a jailed dissident who refused to go into exile in Spain as a condition for release.

Oscar Elias Biscet, 49, was one of 75 opponents of the government sentenced to long prison terms in 2003.

He told the Efe news agency he would continue his non-violent resistance and his fight for human rights on the communist-ruled island.

Mr Biscet said he was grateful he had been able to leave prison in good mental and physical health.

“The Cuban authorities did not manage to make me mentally ill, as they were hoping to do,” he told reporters at his home in the capital, Havana.

Continued fight

He is one of a group of more than 50 dissidents whose release was negotiated by the Catholic Church in Cuba.

Most of those freed agreed to go into exile in Spain, but Mr Biscet said he would remain in his home country.

“I have always lived in Cuba, I am from Cuba,” he said.

He told reporters gathered at his home that he had never stopped fighting and that he had never strayed from the path of non-violent resistance, not even in prison.

Mr Biscet was sentenced to 25 years in prison on charges of working with the United States to subvert the Cuban government.

While serving his prison sentence, he was awarded America’s highest civilian honour, the US Presidential Medal of Freedom, by George W Bush.

Mr Biscet’s arrest was part of a 2003 crackdown on political opponents of the government during which 75 dissidents were arrested.

Three of them remain in custody: Jose Daniel Ferrer, Librado Linares and Felix Navarro.

Note: Thanks to Samuel Hearne for recommending this documentary.

…

Report This Post

Dr Stephen Davies

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of LearnLiberty.org (Institute for Humane Studies)

A filmed talk by Dr. Stephen Davies

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Visions of History:
Ways of Seeing the Past

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Map of the 1858 Atlantic Cable route

The way we think about and understand the past shapes the way we view both the present and the future – Orwell’s famous slogan from 1984 captures this:

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

Most of us without realising it have a unique vision of the past, a way of thinking about it that predisposes us to look at current events in a particular way.

In general, we focus on power and its workings while overlooking other aspects of human existence such as voluntary exchange, cooperative interaction, innovation, and discovery.

Dr Davies offers these dates as examples of historic achievements of the above kind:

August 05 1858
December 12 1901
August 12 1908
August 15 1914
April 26 1956
May 05 1960
January 22 1970
December 25 1990
June 21 2004

SpaceShipOne becomes the first privately financed craft to leave Earth’s atmosphere and reach the edge of space.

When the sorts of achievements that occur on these dates are brought to the foreground, a different kind of historical narrative emerges and transforms our ideas of important dates and significant figures in history.

Dr. Stephen Davies is education director at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London and program officer at the Institute for Humane Studies. Previously, Dr. Davies was a senior lecturer in the Department of History and Economic History at Manchester Metropolitan University in Manchester, England. He has also been a visiting scholar at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center at Bowling Green State University, Ohio. A historian, he graduated from St. Andrews University in Scotland in 1976 and gained his PhD from the same institution in 1984. He has authored several books, including Empiricism and History, and was co-editor with Nigel Ashford of The Dictionary of Conservative and Libertarian Thought.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Date: Monday April 16 & April 30 2012

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234.

6.30 PM: Doors Open.

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion.

Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.30 PM: End of meeting.

Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Report This Post

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of Ken Burns

A beautifully crafted documentary by

Ken Burns & Lynn Novick

on the life & work of

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

FRANK LLYOD WRIGHT

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Date: Monday April 16 & April 23 2012

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234.

6.30 PM: Doors Open.

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion.

Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.45 PM: End of meeting.

Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

From promotional blurb:

Frank Lloyd Wright was the greatest of all American architects. He was an authentic American genius, a man who believed he was destined to redesign the world, creating everything anew.

Over the course of his long career, Wright designed over eight hundred buildings, including such revolutionary structures as the Guggenheim Museum, the Johnson Wax Building, Fallingwater, Unity Temple and Taliesin.

Wright’s buildings and his ideas changed the way we live, work and see the world around us. Frank Lloyd Wright’s architectural achievements were often overshadowed by the turbulence of his melodramatic life.

In ninety-two years, he fathered seven children, married three times and was almost constantly embroiled in scandal. Some hated him, some loved him, but in the end, few could deny that he was the most important architect in America – and perhaps the world.

With exquisite live cinematography, fascinating interviews and rare archival footage, this riveting film (by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick) brings Wright’s unforgettable story to life.

John Clark @ Amazon.com …

The beauty of (this documentary on) Frank Lloyd Wright is that aside from telling a long and often melodramatic story lucidly, it deals with issues of art and architecture in ways that are approachable but not simplistic. (It’s also surprisingly scandalous, although this is seen as part of his art.)

Wright was first and foremost a rebel who took his cues from nature, though, as one commentator points out, this is not to say his approach was natural. What he was rebelling against was the clutter and claustrophobia of Victorian architecture. The rooms he designed opened up on each other, and his exteriors seemed to grow laterally out of the landscape.

… The filmmakers have wisely kept the technical talk to a minimum, but they are also not afraid to step back and let the experts ruminate on the nature of his genius, even when these experts are at a loss for words.

… Wright himself comes across as a man who never doubted himself, a lousy father, and self-consciously Byronic. His vitality and larger-than-life persona seemed to belong to the 19th century, making him–and this is perhaps a mixed blessing — the last of his kind.

Report This Post

General Wojciech Jaruzelski declares Martial Law in Poland, 1981

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of the Heritage Foundation
A filmed talk drawing on Polish and Soviet archives
and the personal experiences of the speakers

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Poland on the Eve of Martial Law

 Featuring two Polish scholars

Marek Chodakiewicz

(Academic Dean and Professor of History, Institute of World Politics)

&

Janusz Reiter

(Ambassador of the Republic of Poland)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Date: Monday April 02 2012

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234.

6.30 PM: Doors Open.

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion.

Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.45 PM: End of meeting.

Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Description

On December 13, 1981 Poland awoke to find itself under Martial Law.

Imposed by Prime Minister Jaruzelski to “defend socialism” from Solidarity, the first independent trade union in Eastern Europe during the Soviet era, all travel, outside communications, economic activity and media reports were put under military administration.

Solidarity’s leaders and activists were arrested and imprisoned without sentence, and active resistance was brutally crushed. Martial Law was eventually suspended on December 31, 1982 although much of the restrictive legislation continued throughout the 1980s.

At a state dinner in Warsaw in November 1988, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher called for “personal and political liberty,” joining growing international pressure from the Pope and President Reagan.

On June 5, 1989, Solidarity won the first free elections in Poland after WWII by a land-slide.

What was it like to wake up to the sight of tanks and armed military units on the street? And what are the longer-lasting consequences of this event?

Successive polls show that around 50% of Poles consider Jaruzelski’s decision to impose martial law as justified, although prosecutors filed charges against Gen. Jaruzelski this March, to prosecute the unconstitutional imposition of martial law.

The panelists reflect on their direct experiences of martial law in Poland, what happened afterwards, and analyze the residual effects on modern Poland today.

PART ONE December 23, 1981.
Ronald Reagan’s speech in support for Poland’s Solidarity Movement …

PART TWO ….

…

Report This Post

The discussion occurred in the comments section of an article by Peter Hume titled Government is the Spirit of Conquest 

ARTICLE:

Looking at the Four Corners report on Secret Iraq, it is hard not be impressed by the desperate guts of civilians willing to fight the full panoply of the US army to the death.

While the US Marines were killing men, women and children by the thousands in Fallujah, the British, like the cat that swallowed the canary, were smug at how well they had done at pacifying the south. Until they started getting blown up badly, so they decided they’d better pack up and take their traveling death team to pick on … the goatherds of Afghanistan!

The sheer flagrant criminality of the State is so breathtaking. The ethic is always the same double standard: I have a right to be violent to you, you don’t have a right to be violent to me.

One of the marines explained, as if to a moron, “If you order a marine regiment to attack a city, they attack a city.” That’s as far as their ethics go. They don’t the question the ethics of orders to kill. They just kill and assume that the justification comes from the political process.

But what could possibly justify such high crimes on such a large scale? Obviously the pretexts given for war, the weapons of mass destruction and such, were lies and it was later proved that the politicians knew them to be lies at the time — but no prison for them.

What about democracy? Here we see the entire justification for democracy stripped bare. Could a majority vote of the American people justify such blatant mass murder against the Iraqis? No! Could a majority vote of the Iraqi people justify it? No!

That being so, how could democratic government be in any better position than that of a majority using force and threats to coerce the minority into obedience and submission?

In war we see the essence of the State. For all States originate from armies and conquest somewhere along the line: all democracies originated from monarchies, and all monarchies originated from conquest. Government is the ethic of conquest carried forward against the subject population, democracy or no. Government is the spirit of conquest, institutionalized.

- – -

COMMENTS THREAD

Have made some minor changes to punctuation and formatting to make for easier reading, and have numbered the comments

- – -

#1 PRODOS:

Peter Humes is impressed by “civilians willing to fight the full panoply of the US army to the death”.

What about those (many) Iraqis who want the US military to be there? (Some even appear to be fighting alongside the Americans). It could be useful to find out their viewpoint. Do you agree?

If the US military withdrew, what sort of political/social system would those “civilians” Peter is applauding seek to maintain and enforce within the region they control?

Would it be a non-coercive social/political system? Would it be a system that recognizes free speech? Freedom of worship? Individual rights in general?

Would Peter be troubled if these “civilians” succeeded in setting up a systematically oppressive system? For instance, one run along Theocratic/Totalitarian lines?

If Peter would not be troubled or concerned by such an outcome, then he can’t claim to be in favour of liberty.

If Peter would be troubled by such an outcome, then he would do well to check the motives, goals, plans of those “civilians” before praising them.

From where do these “civilians” get their weapons? Is it from another government? If so, does that other government have a pro-liberty agenda? Will Peter Hume condemn or criticise that other government?

Peter Hume says: “Government is the spirit of conquest, institutionalized”.

Would it be equally true to say that Anarcho-Capitalism [is] the spirit of conquest, privatized?

In any case, “institutionalizing” something doesn’t necessarily make it bad or good.

There are certainly models of government that derive from institutionalizing conquest and aggression.

There are other principles of government and models of government that have arisen from those who reject conquest and aggression and seek to protect themselves and others from it.

Best Wishes,

PRODOS
Melbourne, Australia

- – -

#2 Benjamin Marks:

PRODOS, Anarchocapitalism is not the spirit of conquest, privatised. It is the spirit of self-interest under the division of labour, allowed.

No Iraqi, however willing, has the right to tax United States taxpayers to fund their defence. That would make the Iraqi victim of oppression an oppressor themselves. If they want to ask a voluntarily-funded defence organisation for assistance, then that would be a different story.

I agree that many people who support tyranny have good intentions, but when they endorse non-consensual methods to get their way, the ethic of conquest is an apt description.

- – -

#3 PRODOS:

Good morning.

Benjamin: “No Iraqi, however willing, has the right to tax United States taxpayers to fund their defence.”

In Benjamin’s opinion, do the “civilians” Peter Hume praises have the right to incur costs on the citizens of those states who are supplying and training those Iraqi “civilians”?

To add to the problem, it seems that the sponsoring states may be of an oppressive nature – oppressing their own citizens, and even promising to destroy other states and kill or subjugate the citizens of other states.

Will Benjamin and Peter condemn those sponsoring states and those Iraqi “civilians” who are cooperating with those states?

Benjamin: “That would make the Iraqi victim of oppression an oppressor themselves. If they want to ask a voluntarily-funded defence organisation for assistance, then that would be a different story.”

Do such voluntarily-funded defence organisations currently exist? If so, can Benjamin (or Peter, or anyone else) point us to some examples of them?

Assuming they do exist, if I put myself in the shoes of an oppressed Iraqi, I wonder: how would I audition the applicants, how would I pay them, how would I fire them if I’m not happy with them, how would I enforce my contractual arrangements with them, how would I ensure that they don’t switch sides at some point, what would I do if they failed and my enemy succeeded in conquering me and my community, etc.

As an oppressed Iraqi, I’d also wonder how my volunteers would stack up against the might and skill of a state-sponsored military force, especially if that sponsoring state was of a brutal and fanatical nature.

Perhaps my questions are naïve and Benjamin and Peter have already thought through all this stuff?

Benjamin writes: “Anarchocapitalism is not the spirit of conquest, privatised. It is the spirit of self-interest under the division of labour, allowed.”

I don’t understand that last sentence – especially the way the term “allowed” is used. Could Benjamin (or anyone else) clarify, please?

In any case, it could just as easily be claimed that a Constitutional Democracy is the result and the expression and the implementation of the division of labour in the service of self-interest (for instance, in defence of the citizens’ life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness)

Best Wishes,

Prodos
Melbourne, Australia

- – -

#4 Benjamin Marks:

Prodos: I condemn all those who violate property rights.

As for your practical question as to how an oppressed Iraqi is to defend their property rights: I haven’t a clue, but in expropriating the property of others through taxation to fund their defence, they are violating the property rights of others in order to save their own. That does not seem a justifiable or principled approach to me. Besides, the U.S. is hardly the pure do-gooder with a brilliant track record that you seem to imply. U.S. had sponsored two regime changes in Iraq prior to the war.

If you are into “celebrating capitalism”, you should add: “And celebrating state socialism when it comes to defence.” Here’s a question for you: Is there any limit to how much money you think government is justified in taxing its subjects to pay for defence?

How can a government-enforced monopolist of defence, as you endorse, be said to be an “expression and implementation of the division of labour in the service of self-interest”? Does that mean you would define the NBN scheme the same way? If not, why not?

- – -

#5 PRODOS:

Benjamin Marks writes “I condemn all those who violate property rights.”

Therefore you would very strongly condemn those “civilians” Peter Hume praised in his article. It’s odd therefore that he views them with such admiration. Maybe he does not share your high regard for property rights.

Earlier, Benjamin wrote: “If they [i.e. the oppressed Iraqis] want to ask a voluntarily-funded defence organisation for assistance, then that would be a different story.”

I then asked: “Do such voluntarily-funded defence organisations currently exist? If so, can Benjamin (or Peter, or anyone else) point us to some examples of them?”

I put that question to Benjamin and to Peter Hume once again.

Please do your best gentlemen to provide readers with some sort of examples. Or inform readers that you do not know of any such organisation at present.

This is relevant, because if such an organisation does not currently exist, that may partly explain WHY those oppressed Iraqis have not advertised for it.

Meanwhile, Benjamin writes: “As for your practical question as to how an oppressed Iraqi is to defend their property rights: I haven’t a clue …”

I kinda guessed that.

As for those “practical questions” that I raised, if I were to ask those very same questions about a supermarket or a panel beater or a pet care service, I think Benjamin would be able to provide some basic answers.

Benjamin continues: “… but in expropriating the property of others through taxation to fund their defence, they are violating the property rights of others in order to save their own. That does not seem a justifiable or principled approach to me.”

The Iraqi people do not have the power to tax Americans. American citizens are taxed by American governments. If there is any expropriating of Americans going on, it’s not by Iraqis, even if it can be demonstrated that some Iraqis may be beneficiaries.

I also note that if Benjamin is arguing that Iraqis are (in effect) taxing US citizens, doesn’t that mean the Iraqis are opposed to those “civilians” which Peter Hume has praised?

I believe the Four Corners episode which Peter referred to is titled “Secret Iraq – Insurgency”.

These “civilians” are considered “insurgents”.

Large numbers of them have been foreigners. i.e. Not Iraqis.

Many of these foreigners have received military training and are commanded by other states. i.e. They are not really “civilians”.

I found this part of the description of the Four Corners programme curious: “A key C.I.A. operative explains how the decision to use private security contractors, instead of soldiers or police, also created massive problems for the Coalition”.

It would be interesting to learn more about that.

Benjamin: “Besides, the U.S. is hardly the pure do-gooder with a brilliant track record that you seem to imply …”

I have neither said nor implied any such thing. It is easy for the reader to verify that, by simply reading my earlier comments.

Nor does a people or a nation lose legitimacy or the right to be treated fairly because it is not “pure” or because its track record is not “brilliant”.

Not even Jesus imposed such a standard on nations.

Furthermore, my view of what is good or bad about the USA may be quite different from Benjamin’s.

Even if I agree in general terms, without specifics, that Americans or some group of Americans have done bad things – what I consider bad, Benjamin may consider good, and what I consider good, Benjamin may consider bad.

For instance, both a Social Democrat and a Classical Liberal would answer “yes” to the question: “Has America done stupid things in the last century?”

But the Social Democrat would be thinking about the lack of Universal Health Care, and the Classical Liberal would be thinking about Eminent Domain.

Even though they both answered “yes” to the same question, they are in fact in complete disagreement.

Benjamin: “U.S. had sponsored two regime changes in Iraq prior to the war.”

Many of those “civilians” which Peter Hume has praised, as well as their sponsors, seem to want regime change, even though the current regime has a higher degree of protection of life and property, and has a greater degree of “consent of the governed” than either the previous Saddam-led regime or the regime proposed being worked towards by Peter’s “civilians”.

Peter’s “civilians” and their sponsors actually seek regime changes, not just in Iraq, but worldwide.

At least that’s what they repeatedly say, and have been saying for a couple of decades now. Some of them reiterate this goal before, during, or after killing innocent people.

Benjamin: “If you are into “celebrating capitalism”, you should add: “And celebrating state socialism when it comes to defence.””

I don’t understand this line of argument.

When it comes to defending their geographic monopoly and their citizens against invasion, both a Capitalist state and a Socialist state would mobilise all resources to stop this happening to them. I don’t see much difference between them in that regard.

In a condition of War, the military leadership, including the Commander in Chief, of both a Socialist state and that of a Capitalist state would exercise extensive interventionist powers to repel and destroy their enemies.

I don’t see that a Capitalistic state becomes Socialistic in that situation any more than a Socialistic state becomes Capitalistic in such a situation, or in ensuring they are prepared for such an eventuality, which is what Defence basically is.

If a violent intruder breaks into Benjamin’s house and endangers his life or the life of his family, and Benjamin shoots the intruder dead, he hasn’t suddenly become a criminal.

We couldn’t say of Benjamin “he celebrates life and property but celebrates crime when it comes to his self-defence.”

Benjamin: “Here’s a question for you: Is there any limit to how much money you think government is justified in taxing its subjects to pay for defence?”

That’s a very odd question. It’s a question that has no meaningful answer. As it stands, the questions asks for a “yes” or “no” answer.

Even a totalitarian dictatorship might answer “yes” to such a question. Who would answer “no” to such a question? Other than a deluded psychotic, who would claim there is absolutely no limit?

Benjamin: “How can a government-enforced monopolist of defence, as you endorse, be said to be an ‘expression and implementation of the division of labour in the service of self-interest’?”

My complete statement, from which Benjamin has excerpted, was in response to Benjamin’s earlier assertion that: “Anarchocapitalism is not the spirit of conquest, privatised. It is the spirit of self-interest under the division of labour, allowed.”

This was an assertion without explanation.

What I replied, in part, was: “… it could just as easily be claimed that a Constitutional Democracy is the result and the expression and the implementation of the division of labour in the service of self-interest (for instance, in defence of the citizens’ life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness)”

I offered an equal but opposite assertion without explanation.

But here’s the difference. Whereas my statement is merely an observation drawn from history, Benjamin is proposing a new kind of approach to the defence of life, liberty, and property.

I’m not saying: “I believe the world should move towards a system of states wherein the coercive agent (government) will have a geographic monopoly on the use of force”. I am not proposing this because this is what we already have across the free and semi-free world.

Benjamin, on the other hand, is proposing something fundamentally different from what exists in the free and semi-free world, and claims that this will be an improvement.

I feel, therefore, the onus is on him to clarify his proposed model further.

If the citizens of America abandoned statehood and moved to an Anarchocapitalist model, would that make them less likely or more likely to intervene in the affairs of others?

What if Al-Quaeda set itself up as a private military service? Would this add to people’s liberty or not?

By virtue of it currently being a non-state actor, is Al-Quaeda closer to the Anarchocapitalist ideal of private property and liberty than, say, a country like Australia?

Thanks for the opportunity to reflect on these issues.

Best Wishes,

Prodos
Melbourne, Australia

- – -

#6 Benjamin Marks:

Thanks for your note.

You say, “As for those ‘practical questions’ that I raised, if I were to ask those very same questions about a supermarket or a panel beater or a pet care service, I think Benjamin would be able to provide some basic answers.” If the supply of food was a government industry, and you asked me what form privatised food supply would take, and I suggested, supermarkets, you would, I fear, be a little dismissive. But why should I tell you, who apparently believes in economic principles and the market process, what form a privatised industry will take in the market. I predict that insurance companies would become defenders of private property.

On the questions that I asked that you said had no meaningful answer to. What it showed is that defence is a scarce economic good. How can you defend central planning of an economic good, on grounds of efficiency or effectiveness? How does government know where to most efficiently put its resources? The answer is, as you ought to know, that economic calculation under government is not possible. This is a crucial point.

You say, “If the citizens of America abandoned statehood and moved to an Anarchocapitalist model, would that make them less likely or more likely to intervene in the affairs of others?” Less likely, since there is less accountability for governments than for businesses, and less incentive to lie and mislead the populace into war.

Non-government criminals are still criminals. It is amusing that you imply that anarchocapitalists support criminals, provided that the criminals are not state-sponsored.

Here’s another question: How many civilians has Al-Quaeda killed compared to how many civilians killed by U.S. forces in the name of eliminating the threat?

- – -

#7a PRODOS:

Good afternoon.

Benjamin (correctly) quoted me from an earlier comment saying:

PRODOS: “… if I were to ask those very same questions about a supermarket or a panel beater or a pet care service, I think Benjamin would be able to provide some basic answers.”

Benjamin responded to this:

BENJAMIN: “If the supply of food was a government industry, and you asked me what form privatised food supply would take, and I suggested, supermarkets, you would, I fear, be a little dismissive. But why should I tell you, who apparently believes in economic principles and the market process, what form a privatised industry will take in the market.”

Benjamin is responding as if I had asked: “What form would a private defence service take?”

That was not my question.

(continued …)

- – -

#7b PRODOS:

What I had written in an earlier comment was:

PRODOS: “Do such voluntarily-funded defence organisations currently exist? If so, can Benjamin (or Peter, or anyone else) point us to some examples of them?”

PRODOS: “Assuming they do exist, if I put myself in the shoes of an oppressed Iraqi, I wonder: how would I audition the applicants, how would I pay them, how would I fire them if I’m not happy with them, how would I enforce my contractual arrangements with them, how would I ensure that they don’t switch sides at some point, what would I do if they failed and my enemy succeeded in conquering me and my community, etc.”

If I were to ask most of these questions of any business – no matter what their form – and that’s the crucial point – and that’s why I provided several diverse “for instance” examples – the same answers would apply in all cases.

The reader can try it.

(continued …)

- – -

#8 Benjamin Marks:

In the marketplace, organisations can arise that cater to services where there is newly increased or newly expressed demand. And there are already-existing defence companies, although I presume they are not on a scale you would find satisfying, but the principles that apply to small-scale defence services apply to large-scale ones too.

You talk of the importance of auditioning, paying and, if unhappy with the service, firing, the defence provider you hire. I can’t work out how these difficulties are in any way overcome by government. Have you ever tried firing the U.S. Army? Here is an article from the Washington Post titled “Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pull Out”: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti… . Considering that there is no evidence that any Iraqi actually hired the U.S. government, and that there is evidence that Iraqi’s want the U.S. out, your comment on the importance of being able to fire defence contractors you hire seems misdirected.

- – -

#7c PRODOS:

i.e. Try answering most of the above questions for ANY type of business service (eg. Brothels, Airlines, Orchestras, Martial Arts Schools, Insurance brokers) and you will find you can, in broad terms, answer nearly all the questions quite easily, and that the answers will all be of a similar nature regardless of the specific type of business service. I’ll call this the Classical Liberal Scenario.

Now try to answer these same questions when the entities are private defence services (in a world where there is no geographic monopoly over the use of retaliatory force, controlled by a democratic government with constitutionally limited powers). I’ll call this the Anarcho Capitalist Scenario.

I’ve tried this thought experiment and have found that the Anarcho Capitalist Scenario does not pan out the same way as the Classical Liberal Scenario.

(continued …)

- – -

#7d PRODOS:

There are several significant areas of difference between the CLScenario and the ACScenario which result in very different sorts of outcomes when it comes to dealing with the questions I asked, above.

These areas of difference relate to the manner in which coercive power is brought to bear or can be brought to bear when there is a dispute between parties.

BENJAMIN: “How does government know where to most efficiently put its resources? The answer is, as you ought to know, that economic calculation under government is not possible. This is a crucial point.“

It is not correct that economic calculation is impossible under government.

Can Benjamin (or anyone else from Economics.org.au) provide a reference to something written by Ludwig von Mises that supports this contention? I’m not an expert on Mises, but have studied a fair bit of his work and have not ever come across anything in the writings of Ludwig von Mises that supports Benjamin’s statement.

(continued …)

- – -

#9 Benjamin Marks:

Mises says: “The fundamental objection advanced against the practicability of socialism refers to the impossibility of economic calculation. It has been demonstrated in an irrefutable way that a socialist commonwealth would not be in a position to apply economic calculation. Where there are no market prices for the factors of production because they are neither bought nor sold, it is impossible to resort to calculation in planning future action and in determining the result of past action. A socialist management of production would simply not know whether or not what it plans and executes is the most appropriate means to attain the ends sought. It will operate in the dark, as it were. It will squander the scarce factors of production both material and human (labour). Chaos and poverty for all will unavoidably result.” Source: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_c…

- – -

#7e PRODOS:

I agree that the answer to this question is, as Benjamin says, “… a crucial point”.

BENJAMIN: “It is amusing that you imply that anarchocapitalists support criminals, provided that the criminals are not state-sponsored.”

It was not my intention to imply any such thing.

Again I ask: Is Al-Qaeda closer to the Anarchocapitalist ideal of private property and liberty than, say, a country like Australia?

(continued …)

- – -

#7f PRODOS:

BENJAMIN: “Here’s another question: How many civilians has Al-Quaeda killed compared to how many civilians killed by U.S. forces in the name of eliminating the threat?”

Let’s say that US military activity has resulted in more civilian deaths than Al-Qaeda activity, what implications do you draw from this?

PRODOS: “If the citizens of America abandoned statehood and moved to an Anarchocapitalist model, would that make them less likely or more likely to intervene in the affairs of others?”

BENJAMIN: “Less likely, since there is less accountability for governments than for businesses, and less incentive to lie and mislead the populace into war.”

I disagree that there is necessarily less accountability for government than for businesses.

I mean that I don’t agree that government, by its nature, is less accountable than business, by its nature.

(continued …)

- – -

#9 Benjamin Marks:

One reason there is necessarily less accountability for government than for business, is because, with government, the provision of service is completely separated from collection of payment.

- – -

#7g PRODOS:

My question was about intervention. Benjamin’s answer focused on War, which is certainly one form of intervention. But there are many others: Slavery, Bribery, Rape, Assassination, Fueds, Duels, Revenge, Theft, Fraud, Spying, Censorship, etc.

Is Benjamin suggesting that a populace will only go to war or be more likely to go to war if it has been lied to and/or mislead?

If so, I don’t believe that is correct.

History has many examples of offensive wars that were started but not based on lies, as well as many examples of defensive wars that were started but not based on lies.

Best Wishes,

PRODOS

Melbourne, Australia

- – -

#10 Benjamin Marks:

Yes, I believe that a populace is far more likely to go to war if it has been lied to and misled. One of my favourite books on this is How Diplomats Make War: http://www.archive.org/details/howdiplomatsmake00… . Here’s a quote from a long-time observer of American foreign policy:

“Wars are seldom caused by spontaneous hatred between peoples, for peoples in general are too ignorant of one another to have grievances and too indifferent to what goes on beyond their borders to plan conquests. They must be urged to the slaughter by politicians who know how to alarm them.” [H.L. Mencken, Treatise on Right and Wrong (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1934), p. 236.]

- – -

#11 Molon Labe:

[Replying to] Prodos:

On defense in the voluntary market, I can think of militias composed of freemen and companies such as Blackwater (now XE Services), Dyncorp or Triple Canopy, off the top of my head.

Going to war is costly. Private warmongers bear the cost of raising an army directly. Public warmongers (politicians and the Military Industrial Complex) can externalise costs through conscription and taxation of the citizenry.

Also:

[Prodos wrote:] “… Benjamin Marks writes “I condemn all those who violate property rights.”

[Prodos wrote]: Therefore you would very strongly condemn those “civilians” Peter Hume praised in his article. It’s odd therefore that he views them with such admiration. Maybe he does not share your high regard for property rights.

Self defense (violating another’s property rights) against an aggressor is compatible with the non-aggression principle and ancap.

Also:

[Prodos wrote:] “… If Peter would not be troubled or concerned by such an outcome (Tyranny gaining a foothold through inaction), then he can’t claim to be in favour of liberty ….”

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then go right ahead and enslave a third party to intervene in a dispute concerning two other parties. I think Rothbard’s analysis of this issue would be helpful:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rothbard_on_war.html

- – -

#12 PRODOS:

MOLON LABE: “On defense in the voluntary market, I can think of militias composed of freemen and companies such as Blackwater (now XE Services), Dyncorp or Triple Canopy, off the top of my head. “

Presumably, MOLON LABE is responding to the question I put to BENJAMIN MARKS earlier in this thread: “Do such voluntarily-funded defence organisations currently exist? If so, can Benjamin (or Peter, or anyone else) point us to some examples of them?”

The problem with referring to the Private Military Companies (PMC’s) listed by MOLON LABE is that they do not operate under an anarcho-capitalist model. Far from it.

They operate under the most advanced form of the nation state model.

Indeed, part of the competitive marketing of these PMC’s (“hire us because we’re better for the following reasons …”) includes providing proof to the public and to clients (and even to prospective employees) that they are at all times subject to the laws of the nation state of which the business owners are citizens.

Their actions over the years prove that they mean it. Did you know that? It’s very easy to verify what I’m saying.

Providing these PMC firms as examples of valuable service, reinforces the case for the nation state, in its Constitutional Democracy form, and comprehensively undermines many of the arguments for the anarcho-capitalist model. Perhaps that’s why Benjamin hasn’t refer to them.

Ironically, PMC’s have flourished as a result of recent United States “imperialism” – including America’s “war against terror”. This has done wonders for PMC business. Rather than diminish the scope of the nation state, PMC’s are effective agents in extending American power. The USA even refused to sign the “International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries”, which would have outlawed the use of PMC’s. Yet another reason to be cautious about invoking PMC’s when arguing the case for the anarcho-capitalist ideal.

Best Wishes,

PRODOS
Melbourne, Australia

- – -

Report This Post

Free Marketer, Andrus Ansip, Prime Minister of Estonia

For the enlightenment, advancement, and inspiration of its members

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of the Hoover Institution
Two filmed talks exploring freedom and prosperity:

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

1. Estonian Prime Minister, Andrus Ansip:
How a Former Soviet Satellite Became One of the Worlds Most Free Economies

The principles, policies, and challenges behind achieving the remarkable growth and development of Estonia since the end of Soviet occupation and accession into the European Union. Flat tax, free and open markets, foreign investment, social issues, etc.

2. Nobel Prize winner, Michael Spence:
The Future of Economic Growth

Around 1750 the world economy began its amazing transformation with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. What happened then and why did it happen? The short answer, according to Michael Spence is “innovation.” But where does innovation come from? Spence traces the emergence of the global economy, marking the critical interaction of economics and governance in successful economies in the developing world. He focuses on China and India as emerging economic powers and what their rise will mean for the United States.

Economist, Michael Spence

Date: Monday March 26 2012

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234.

6.30 PM: Doors Open.

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion.

Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.45 PM: End of meeting.

Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

…

Report This Post

Trailer from Sarah Palin documentary: Undefeated

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of Fox News Channel
And special thanks to Brian Gaffney

The last two episodes of this outstanding six-part documentary:

The Rise, Fall & Future of Conservatism

5: Passing the Torch (43 minutes)

6: The Way Forward (43 minutes)

Date: Monday March 19 2012

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234.

6.30 PM: Doors Open.

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion.

Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.45 PM: End of meeting.

Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Rush Limbaugh: The most trusted news personality in the USA according to Zogby International.

Part Five: “Passing the Torch”

“Passing the Torch” is part five of Brit Hume’s six-hour series on the history of American conservatism. This episode tells the inside story of the movement’s struggles and gains in the 11 years following the Reagan presidency.

Video: Watch a preview clip

Reel 5 covers:

• President George H. W. Bush who managed the collapse of the Soviet Union and won the Gulf War, but disappointed conservatives by breaking his “no new taxes” pledge
• The rise of conservative media, including radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh
• Newt Gingrich’s stunning upset in the 1994 midterm elections with a “Republican Revolution” backed by a Contract with America
• George W. Bush’s new kind of conservatism: “compassionate conservatism”

This “Fox News Reporting” hour features rare footage and exclusive interviews with William F. Buckley, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, Pat Buchanan, James Baker, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Sanford, and many others who tell their personal accounts of conservatism following the Reagan era.

Thomas Sowell: "If the battle for civilization comes down to the wimps versus the barbarians, the barbarians are going to win."

Reel Six: “The Way Forward”

“The Way Forward” is the sixth and final hour of Brit Hume’s series on the history of the American conservative movement. This episode tells the inside story of the movement’s struggles and eventual resurgence from 2001 to the present day.

Reel 6 covers:

• The presidency of George W. Bush, which sparked fierce disagreements within the conservative movement over the War on Terror, domestic spending, the Supreme Court, and the financial collapse
• The election of President Barack Obama and the rise of new conservative figures like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck
• The Tea Party movement and the conservative comeback in the 2010 midterm elections

Video: Watch a preview

This “Fox News Reporting” hour features rare footage and exclusive interviews with Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Donald Rumsfeld, Glenn Beck, Thomas Sowell, Pat Buchanan, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Rand Paul and many others who tell their personal accounts of the past decade in conservatism.

…

Report This Post

Ronald Reagan with Newt Gingrich

PRODOS FILM STUDY GROUP

Proudly presents

With the kind permission of of Fox News Channel
And special thanks to Brian Gaffney

The first two episodes of an outstanding six-part documentary:

The Rise, Fall & Future of Conservatism

3: Path to Power (43 minutes)

4: Reagan’s Resolve (42 minutes)

Date: Monday March 12 2012

Venue: Home of Prodos & Barboo, 153 Lennox Street, Richmond. Phone: 9428 1234.

6.30 PM: Doors Open.

Meals (all at cost price) served between 6.30 PM and 7.15 PM

• Lemon Pepper Atlantic Salmon: $12
• Crumbed Lamb Cutlets: $12

7.30 PM (sharp): Commencement of Film + Chaired discussion.

Who: Only registered PRODOS Film Study Group members and guests of members allowed. You can apply to join on the night. To join you need to agree with our purpose and pay the $2 annual fee.

Policy: Leaving straight after a film and therefore skipping the discussion goes against one of the conditions upon which our permission to screen these films is based.

9.45 PM: End of meeting.

Cost: No charge. But if you’d like to make a personal donation to Prodos that’s greatly appreciated. Thanks.

=================================================

Part Three: “Path to Power”

“Path to Power” is part three of Brit Hume’s six-hour series on the history of American conservatism. This episode tells the inside story of how conservatives reshaped their movement following President Nixon’s Watergate scandal.

• Ronald Reagan’s 1976 primary challenge to incumbent President Gerald Ford
• The rise of Christian conservatives on the national political scene
• The story of how the neoconservatives moved politically left to right
• Reagan’s 1980 run for the White House and his victory as an unapologetic conservative

This Fox News Reporting hour features rare footage and exclusive interviews with Dick Cheney, Pat Robertson, Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, Jack Kemp, Phyllis Schlafly, Steve Forbes, Rush Limbaugh and many others who tell their personal accounts of conservatism’s struggles and ultimate victory from the 1970s to 1980.

Reel Four: “Reagan’s Resolve”

“Reagan’s Resolve” is part four of Brit Hume’s six-hour series on the history of American conservatism. This episode tells the inside story of the Reagan presidency and the battles to revive the U.S. economy and defeat communism.

• Reagan’s unwavering faith in his tax-cutting plan to turn around America’s devastated economy
• Reagan’s strategy to confront Soviet communism and conviction that freedom would prevail
• Reagan’s determination to reverse the trend of judicial activism in the federal courts

This “Fox News Reporting” hour features rare footage and exclusive interviews with William F. Buckley, Donald Rumsfeld, George Shultz, David Stockman, James Baker, Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, Ken Adelman, Robert Bork, Rush Limbaugh and many others who tell their personal accounts of conservatism’s golden era.

 …

Report This Post