Talk:Richard J. Maybury

Untitled
i subscribed to EWR for many years but finally had to cancel it when I just couldn't take Mr. Maybury's tendency to blame the US for all the world's ills. I am no pie in the sky fantasist; I understand how US policy had made mistakes; I understand the temptation to say how we've alienated other nations. But I also think Mr. Maybury contradicts himself. He blames US meddling in the middle east but he himself says that this is a 1000 year war. Indeed, it is, stemming from the birth of Islam. Islam's history writes itself; it does not get along with anyone, including its neighbors and its own sects. It is the most atavistic religion on the planet. So how can 100 years of US meddling be responsible for the bad relations Muslims have with the entire planet? Furthermore, he himself says that the laws of the west - his two laws - were never received or honored by Chaostan. They're pretty basic laws and I'm sure the guys who gave us algebra have run across them. If so, then it seems that therein lies the problem; not with our ill advised foreign policy.

I think Mr. Maybury has value in his war countdown, in some of his libertarian approaches, etc. But I think he essentially demonstrates that Islam is the problem then goes on to blame us for it. Mr. Maybury, whether or not we are in Chaostan, whether it is Bush (and I think your portrayal of him as a zealot is a bit of a stretch, but that's personal opinion) or Clinton making the decisions, whether we load them with petrodollars or not, the world's billion Muslims have been declaring war on US (both the United States and us) since the 30's. It may have been antagonized by intervention, but that is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black; Israel may be the spark, but it seems that a goodly number of the very same nations who now denounce Israeli zionism were probably there in the late 40's voting to make Israel a state - I think Islam would be causing the very same problems now whether it was us or France they decided to hate. Islam has managed to thrive on hate and violence, and I have read the Qu'Ran several times - and has spread itself not like Mormons - white shirts, ties, and bikes - but by the sword, from Spain to Indonesia. To blame us entirely for their hatred of us defies credibility. They haven't exactly cozied up to the Hindus or Buddhists, now, have they. Now, how we go about the war is debatable; I feel we should lock up the store; mine the borders, deport every Muslim who lives here including some of the recently naturalized citizens); bug the mosques; and use profiling liberally at the airports and borders. I do think there may be a place for big iron, because if these pesky little gnats keep blowing up plane and subways I think we may exact a big tit for tat - perhaps taking out a city or Ka'aba a week until they get the message.  I'd be happy to isolate and let them rot.  But they were fed and trained by the Russians as part of their proxy war against the US and Israel, and they are very shrewd and feeling very good about themselves.  There needs to be a war; it is just a matter of debate how, when, and where it is fought.  And he is correct - the only way to win it is with ethnic cleansing.  Since that is taboo esp. to a post Holocaust Jew, then we need major major relocation. Get them out of our front and backyard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your kind editorial; however this does not seem to have much to do with review of this article. Johnzw 21:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Military Experience
The text states Maybury "served with... the 75th Military Airlift Squadron in Vietnam." This is not possible. This history of the 75th, available on Wikipedia, shows that it was a C-141 unit during the Vietnam years and based at Travis AFB, CA, not Vietnam. No C-141 units were based in Vietnam. While it's possible he could have traveled to and from Vietnam with the 75th, he could not have been based there with it.VilePig (talk)

Possible improvements
I came across this article while looking for more information on Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? and while there's some useful information here, I think this article could do a better job of placing Richard Maybury's political and economic theories in context -- what exactly, for example, is 'Juris Naturalism'? How does it differ from classical liberalism? From the Catholic 'natural law'? Unfortunately I can't find much written on Maybury, and like many writers of investment newsletters he seems to want to present himself as sui generis.

Any ideas? Are there reviews of investment newsletters out there?--Uncat (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Press Release
This entire article reads like a press release (or a public relations puff piece). With sentences like "He has written several entry level, common sense, books..." and "The personal tone of the "letters" convey a certain sense of urgency, yet are remarkably understated compared to other revisionist and contrarian viewpoints."

Personally, the little I've read about this individual suggests a mixture of raw intelligence, paranoia, with just a touch of "crank" thrown in. I honestly don't know what to think about him, but reading a Wikipedia page which is clearly "pro-Richard Maybury" doesn't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.66.184 (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Shameless Self Promotion
Most of this article is a rehashing of Maybury's introductory chapters in his book Ancient Rome, How It Affects You Today. The books and this article are often self-referential and lack substantive argument. I would like to see a more detailed critique of his work but in a way that may lend credibility to it and it really does not deserve that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knotch (talk • contribs) 04:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This article needs help!
I'm sending out an SOS here! This article says almost nothing useful, and has not a single citation. That's right, not one solitary citation! If anyone can find more information, it needs to come here. Any online citations, any reference works, etc. would be useful.

Note that his books will not have any good data for that. He states in them that he believes that is is effectively impossible for an author to be truly objective, so says he doesn't try. He tells you what agenda he's pushing, and recommends that you compare his data and opinion with others and decide for yourself. Thus, all you will get from his books will be pro-Maybury. Not a problem, very honest (and refreshing) in fact, but creates a nightmare for someone trying to make a Wikipedia article on him.

I'm not very active usually, but I will see what I can do about the problem. Thanks for the help! - Lord Vargonius (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)