The New World Order is "Communism"

[meksar]

Most people think Communism is an ideology dedicated to public ownership and championing workers and the poor. This was a simple but incredibly successful ruse which duped hundreds of millions. The ideology appealed to people who want something for nothing- rather a large segment.

http://www.henrymakow.com/what_is_communism.html

[meksar]

Communist New World Order?

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[flyermay]

No doubt about it: the elite is following Marx plan for a NWO step by step. :rolleyes:

[kappy0405]

Yep, next the Rockefellers and Rothschilds are going to give up all their money so that everyone can share the worlds resources equally. Yep, they're just that nice after all.

Good thread, OP. ;)

[bendoon]

No doubt about it: the elite is following Marx plan for a NWO step by step. :rolleyes:

Glad you realise it :D

At last.

Yep, next the Rockefellers and Rothschilds are going to give up all their money so that everyone can share the worlds resources equally. Yep, they're just that nice after all.

Good thread, OP. ;)

Ssshh, don't tell anyone but its just a trick, they get to keep their power but everyone else is enslaved.

[kappy0405]

Ssshh, don't tell anyone but its just a trick, they get to keep their power but everyone else is enslaved.

Ahhhhhh I see.. So they're actually champagane Socialists exploiting the idea of Communism without the intention of implementing it. They're not actually Communists then.. Yeah, that makes more sense. :cool:

[bendoon]

Ahhhhhh I see.. So they're actually champagane Socialists exploiting the idea of Communism without the intention of implementing it. They're not actually Communists then.. Yeah, that makes more sense. :cool:

No they implement it alright but they are still in charge. They get to be a dictator like Castro or Stalin whilst everyone else is poor.

[kappy0405]

No they implement it alright but they are still in charge. They get to be a dictator like Castro or Stalin whilst everyone else is poor.

yeah, that would be champagne Socialism. :)

[gabeygoat]

this thread might have made sense 75 years ago.


how come people here don't tie the NWO to the capitalist WTO?

[bendoon]

this thread might have made sense 75 years ago.


how come people here don't tie the NWO to the capitalist WTO?

Because the WTO isn't Capitalist, it is part of the UN which was set up by Communists as the vehicle for spreading Communism worldwide and to be the eventual world Government.

The U.N. Charter and constitution is a thin paraphrasing of the Soviet model which Alger Hiss borrowed from when he coauthored it. The U.N. constitution is therefore a Marxist socialist paradigm.

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/newworldorder/nworder05.html

[kappy0405]

this thread might have made sense 75 years ago.


how come people here don't tie the NWO to the capitalist WTO?

Because people have no idea what Communism is, and since propaganda from 50 years ago said it was evil, people still believe it and it's the official scapegoat.

International banking is at the core of the agenda, and banking/communism is oxymoronic. Hell, the very word 'government' is oxymoronic paired with communism.

[kappy0405]

Because the WTO isn't Capitalist, it is part of the UN which was set up by champagne Socialists as the vehicle for spreading Socialism/Fascism worldwide and to be the eventual world Government.

Fixed. ;)

[meksar]

this thread might have made sense 75 years ago.


how come people here don't tie the NWO to the capitalist WTO?

Captialism is corporate fascism and yes it is being implemented by these major corporations to stop family and local owned businesses from succeding. But however we live in Communist nations with central banks printing fake money and circulating it around the government and corporations. Captialism is a buzzword used by these Zionist Jews who advocate Communism which is more dangerous because it is low profile. Under Communsim you earn nothing and own nothing but yet they parade it around as a champion of human equality.

Go to 7:50 this is the harsh reality waiting around the corner

THE LIGHTBRINGERS The Emissaries of Jahbulon 5/5 - YouTube

[flyermay]

But however we live in Communist nations with central banks printing fake money and circulating it around the government and corporations.

What are you talking about? :confused:

Who's living in a communist nation?... Aren't you from the US?... How is the US a communist nation?

Don't you think you need to explain to us what do you mean by "we live in communist nations", and why you think a central bank or printing money has anything to do with communism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr3L8JmFsiA&feature=related

About your videos... don't you know that any idiot can make a YouTube video and claim whatever he wants?... how does a YouTube video prove anything? :confused:

How's a video showing people being murdered in Russia show the US being communist?... Are you trying to deceive the members of this forum by scaring them? :mad:

But here's a quote from one of your videos to think about:

“The state does not function as we desired. The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes.” – Vladimir Lenin (head of the Soviet State)

[meksar]

What are you talking about? :confused:

Who's living in a communist nation?... Aren't you from the US?... How is the US a communist nation?

Don't you think you need to explain to us what do you mean by "we live in communist nations", and why you think a central bank or printing money has anything to do with communism?



About your videos... don't you know that any idiot can make a YouTube video and claim whatever he wants?... how does a YouTube video prove anything? :confused:

How's a video showing people being murdered in Russia show the US being communist?... Are you trying to deceive the members of this forum by scaring them? :mad:

But here's a quote from one of your videos to think about:

“The state does not function as we desired. The car does not obey. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes.” – Vladimir Lenin (head of the Soviet State)

The U.S.A is a currently a Communist nation and this is why they have used Communist tactics to destroy the fraudulent economy. You have a government which uses Bolshevik tactics to spy on and keep tracks on citizens who are trying to stop the N.W.O. Central Banks are run by the Rothschild's who just happen to be Radical Socialists. Also resaerch Common Purpose and the motives behind that little brainwashing cult, ever wondered why everything is so fucked up nowadays?, well you might find some answers there if you look hard enough.

Obama is Converting USA into Communist - Socialist Country

Obama is Converting USA into Communist - Socialist Country - YouTube

[meksar]

Mao, Red Book,Communist Feminism Liberalism

Mao, Red Book,Communist Feminism Liberalism - YouTube

[flyermay]

The U.S.A is a currently a Communist nation and this is why they have used Communist tactics to destroy the fraudulent economy. You have a government which uses Bolshiveik tactics to spy on and keep tracks on citizens who are trying to stop the N.W.O. Central Banks are run by the Rothschild's whop just happen to be Radical Socialists. Also resaerch Common Purpose and the motives behind that little brainwashing cult, ever wondered why everything is so fucked up nowadays?, well you might find some answers there if you look hard enough.

Where did you get the idea that spying on citizens is a trademark of communism; do they have a patent on it or something? :confused: Show me where it says on Marx's CM that communism is characterised by the surveillance of ordinary citizens.

Next, "radical socialists"... do you even know what socialism means? I'll tell you, it's common ownership of a country's resources to be distributed and shared for the benefit of all; which means that every single citizen has access to all basic needs at an affordable price, or even free of charge. How does the Rothschilds and Co owning most of the world's natural resources for their own benefit makes them "radical socialists"?

Then we have the central banks: what is the relation between a central bank and communism... could you simply clarify this without jumping from one issue to another. Why is a central bank a sign of communism?

And finally, what's the deal with Common Purpose? How is Common Purpose a proof that the world is controlled by communism?

Obama is Converting USA into Communist - Socialist Country

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EvNQ6wPh3o

Just saw the video; and yes, there are lots of pictures of politicians and historic figures of communism and naziims; and what seems to be a song about Obama with a German accent.... however, I fail to see how this video shows that Obama is converting the US into a communist - socialist country... have I missed something? :confused:

[flyermay]

Mao, Red Book,Communist Feminism Liberalism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITU5mg8MFxA&feature=related

What? :eek: ... Have you lost your mind? :confused:

So, now Obama is a communist because he doesn't agree with this square-head misogynist.

Have you even heard this guy:
"We have to avoid feminist whores"
"We must not reward any women that does not submit to patriarchy"
"We have to force women to submit to us"

Is this the kind of people you get your info from?

[kappy0405]

Apparently, North Korea has the most Capitalistic, free market economy on the planet now. :eek:

Want to see how bad free markets are... just look at North Korea. :eek:




























:rolleyes:

[flyermay]

Apparently, North Korea has the most Capitalistic, free market economy on the planet now. :eek:

Want to see how bad free markets are... just look at North Korea. :eek:

:rolleyes:

I really can't understand why people are making these claims, do you get it?... I'm serious, I've tried, but I can't figure out why do people here still believe this nonsense. :confused:

What's so communist about capitalist imperialism, the rich controlling the poor, corporations exploiting every single natural resource on the planet, people paying for something as elemental as water, governments looking after the interests of the elite, people being proud of being uneducated, a free market that has completely wipped out small businesses... etc... etc... etc...

what am I missing that is so evident to everyone else here?

[kappy0405]

I really can't understand why people are making these claims, do you get it?... I'm serious, I've tried, but I can't figure out why do people here still believe this nonsense. :confused:

What's so communist about capitalist imperialism, the rich controlling the poor, corporations exploiting every single natural resource on the planet, people paying for something as elemental as water, governments looking after the interests of the elite, people being proud of being uneducated, a free market that has completely wipped out small businesses... etc... etc... etc...

what am I missing that is so evident to everyone else here?

You're not missing anything.. I do believe that the elite Capitalists, now that they can basically control governments, aren't opposed to moving towards nationalization of industry & other Socialist-type policies.. After all, they'll be the ones controlling it.

Unfortunately, people just like to generalize and equate every move towards the left as Communism, because well, they just don't know what Communism is. A lot of the anti-NWO movement is built on nationalism, & since America has typically prided itself as a Capitalist Republic, people will just generalize about anything contrary to that ideology. :rolleyes:

You have much more patience than I do when dealing with them. :D

[flyermay]

You're not missing anything.. I do believe that the elite Capitalists, now that they can basically control governments, aren't opposed to moving towards nationalization of industry & other Socialist-type policies.. After all, they'll be the ones controlling it.

The issue here is, you don't care about a resource if you can't benefit from it. If, as you say, the elite now want resources to be nationalised (which I don't believe is the case), they might have control through the government (which is also arguable), but they would lose all benefits from those resources. Let's put an example, let's say that Rockefeller still owns the biggest oil producer in the US; why would he lose all the benefits from his company, by pushing for it's nationalisation; even if he has control over the government? I mean, why would he care about controlling US oil through the government, if he already controls most of the oil in the US plus exclusiverly gets all the benefits. It simply makes no sense.

What is being nationalised in the US and the UK anyway?

Unfortunately, people just like to generalize and equate every move towards the left as Communism, because well, they just don't know what Communism is. A lot of the anti-NWO movement is built on nationalism, & since America has typically prided itself as a Capitalist Republic, people will just generalize about anything contrary to that ideology. :rolleyes:

You have much more patience than I do when dealing with them. :D

It's something that really puzzles me... :)

[kappy0405]

The issue here is, you don't care about a resource if you can't benefit from it. If, as you say, the elite now want resources to be nationalised (which I don't believe is the case), they might have control through the government (which is also arguable), but they would lose all benefits from those resources. Let's put an example, let's say that Rockefeller still owns the biggest oil producer in the US; why would he lose all the benefits from his company, by pushing for it's nationalisation; even if he has control over the government? I mean, why would he care about controlling US oil through the government, if he already controls most of the oil in the US plus exclusiverly gets all the benefits. It simply makes no sense.

What is being nationalised in the US and the UK anyway?

I don’t think they want to nationalize industry, as in it’s part of the overall agenda, but I don’t think they would necessarily be all that opposed to it either.

I guess the main way they benefit is that it would cut out the influence of competing shareholders & other corporations. It would basically monopolize their control over an industry even more so.

When you say 'they would lose all benefits from the resources', do you mean financial benefit? I guess that's true as the money would go to the government, but realistically, the government is nearly 14 trillion dollars in debt with the Federal Reserve being the largest debtee. As long as JPMorganChase and other Rothschild' subsidiaries are the largest member banks in the Fed, the governments revenue is Rockschilds revenue.

But yeah, even if they did want to, there's not much of it going on anyway from what I can see. The US government owns like 2/3 (rough guess/estimate) of General Motors now.. And there was talk of nationalizing healthcare early on, but of course that was just Obama-rhetoric. I don't see them making significant moves to the left any time soon anyway.

[bendoon]

International banking is at the core of the agenda, and banking/communism is oxymoronic. Hell, the very word 'government' is oxymoronic paired with communism.

-

10 point program of Communism

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[8]


I'll tell you, it's common ownership of a country's resources to be distributed and shared for the benefit of all; which means that every single citizen has access to all basic needs at an affordable price, or even free of charge.

hahahahah, lol, you fell for that one hook line and sinker, hahahahaha

Thats just a trick to get people to accept it, wait while it happens and it won't be quite like that.

Common ownership, hahahahahahaha

[kappy0405]

-10 point program of Communism

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[8]


Those 10 planks don't define a Communist society; they define Marx's bullsh1t theory on how to achieve Communism. Unfortunately, regardless of what his true intentions were, those 10 planks have never led to a Communist society, but rather authoritarian Socialist ones.

So basically, what you're complaining about has nothing to do with Communism. Like most people who think they hate Communism, you're actually opposed to Marxism and Socialism.

[kappy0405]

hahahahah, lol, you fell for that one hook line and sinker, hahahahaha

Thats just a trick to get people to accept it, wait while it happens and it won't be quite like that.

Common ownership, hahahahahahaha

No, the trick (assuming it didn't just fail) to get people to accept it was 'Marxism', the theory on how to achieve Communism.

Communism is a type of society.

Marxism is a failed (or false) theory on how to achieve such a society.

Socialism is the type of society that Marxism has actually created.

[bendoon]

Those 10 planks don't define a Communist society; they define Marx's bullsh1t theory on how to achieve Communism. Unfortunately, regardless of what his true intentions were, those 10 planks have never led to a Communist society, but rather authoritarian Socialist ones.

So basically, what you're complaining about has nothing to do with Communism. Like most people who think they hate Communism, you're actually opposed to Marxism and Socialism.

Well if you prefer the term "authoritarian Socialist" fair enough, then I would say that the NWO will be authoritarian Socialist and not Communist.

[flyermay]

I don’t think they want to nationalize industry, as in it’s part of the overall agenda, but I don’t think they would necessarily be all that opposed to it either.

Well, they do show their opposition, since they are the first to push the government's intervention against any country that even thinks about nationalizing (i.e. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.)

Nationalization is a lose-lose situation for them; I'll explain while further down.

I guess the main way they benefit is that it would cut out the influence of competing shareholders & other corporations. It would basically monopolize their control over an industry even more so.

But shareholders are not competitors. Actually, all companies want to attrack as many shareholders as possible, since that would increase the prices of its own shares. To start with, no company needs to go public (sell shares), they actually do it because by having shareholders you actually get an enourmous amount of cash in the company, that otherwise you would have to acquire through expensive loans. So, shareholders are never considered competition, but partners.

And it is true that they would get rid of other corporations, but not by gaining control of a monopoly, but by simply closing that market. Many people confuse nationalisation with monopoly, but they are two very different things, and from a business point of view a nationalisation is not a monopoly (actually you could arguy it is the opposite).

When you say 'they would lose all benefits from the resources', do you mean financial benefit? I guess that's true as the money would go to the government, but realistically, the government is nearly 14 trillion dollars in debt with the Federal Reserve being the largest debtee. As long as JPMorganChase and other Rothschild' subsidiaries are the largest member banks in the Fed, the governments revenue is Rockschilds revenue.

Yes, but why would they give away their companies and future finantial benefits. The US government will repay them anyway, whether or not anything is nationalised. The Fed cannot touch any sources of income of the US government, just what it's owed to it. So, by giving them extra sources of income would not benefit them in any way.

It would be the same as you giving away any of your property to someone that owes you money, so that he would repay you faster. You would actually want him to repay you slower in any case; since you are charging interets.

But yeah, even if they did want to, there's not much of it going on anyway from what I can see. The US government owns like 2/3 (rough guess/estimate) of General Motors now.. And there was talk of nationalizing healthcare early on, but of course that was just Obama-rhetoric. I don't see them making significant moves to the left any time soon anyway.

Yes, but a government buying shares of a private company to avoid bankrupcy is not the same as nationalisation. And with the national health system, a quarte of the same, for what I learnt it was never meant to be a nationalisation of the health system (owned by the government) but the US government controlling private healthcare organisations and subsidising the medical requirements of its citizens.

I realise that this things are quite confusing, and that many do look like nationalisation. But either way, nationalisation is not socialism; just look at the case of Europe, where most countries still have many nationalised institutions and organisations, but still are under the same capitalist system as the US.

[veritasvoice]

this thread might have made sense 75 years ago.

how come people here don't tie the NWO to the capitalist WTO?

Because the WTO isn't capitalist?.

Or because all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto are actively implemented in the USA and the UK?

[flyermay]

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

You must be joking... do you realise that that's exactly what all anti-NWO people want, including you? :D

How long have you been on this forum mate? That's what we all want, a central bank owned by the state and out of the hands of the bankers profiting from it.... A bank that prints money without charging interests..... A bank that is not owned by private investors, but by the government.

The anti-NWO are the communists then... including YOU!!!! lol :D

Oh my God.... this is just a laugh. lol

[flyermay]

hahahahah, lol, you fell for that one hook line and sinker, hahahahaha

Thats just a trick to get people to accept it, wait while it happens and it won't be quite like that.

Common ownership, hahahahahahaha

How would you even know if someone tricks me, if you don't know what you want yourself? :eek:

[flyermay]

Because the WTO isn't capitalist?.

Or because all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto are actively implemented in the USA and the UK?

Is this another joke? :confused:

Please go on, tell us one by one how all those 10 planks are implemented in the US and the UK... :)

[veritasvoice]

You must me joking... do you realise that that's exactly what all anti-NWO people want, including you? :D

How long have you been on this forum mate? That's what we all want, a central bank owned by the state and out of the hands of the bankers profiting from it.... A bank that prints money without charging interests..... A bank that is not owned by private investors, but by the government.

The anti-NWO are the communists then... including YOU!!!! lol :D

Oh my God.... this is just a laugh. lol

No, the entire central banking system is institutionally corrupt - so is the model of the state that has been prevalent for at least the last 2000 years. Statism is by its very nature oppressive, and contrary to the ideal of equal, unalienable human rights.

ALL government is a necessary evil, at best. People have been encouraged to forget this fact. No politician can ever represent your interests better than you can - and none of them follow the law.

Ask yourself - what does it say for someone to run for a position where they will have power and authority over their fellow man? And people wonder why politicians are almost always sociopaths/psychopaths?

[bendoon]

Let's put an example, let's say that Rockefeller still owns the biggest oil producer in the US; why would he lose all the benefits from his company, by pushing for it's nationalisation; even if he has control over the government? I mean, why would he care about controlling US oil through the government, if he already controls most of the oil in the US plus exclusiverly gets all the benefits. It simply makes no sense.

This is where most people go wrong, they think that rich people own Multi National Corporations and this gives rise to the idea of "rich greedy Capitalists" exploiting the workers. Well they don't, all the owners of the large companies sold out years ago and their money is in tax exempt foundations, or maybe if you are into conspiracy hidden in the FED or the BIS or whatever. The largest shareholders in the world by far are pension funds containing the money of ordinary workers and the largest of these are State and local Government pension schemes in the US.

The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) is an agency in the California executive branch that "manages pension and health benefits for more than 1.6 million California public employees, retirees, and their families"[1]. In fiscal year 2007-2008, $10.88 billion was paid in retirement benefits[2], and in calendar year 2009 it is estimated that over $5.7 billion will be paid in health benefits[3].

As of December 2008, CalPERS managed the largest public pension fund in the United States with $179.2 billion in assets; however, that represented a 31% decrease from the peak value of its assets of $260.6 billion in October 2007

CalPERS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thats just for one state.

So in reality Multi National Corporations are owned by ordinary people, but they don't own enough to have a say on an individual level, the decisions are made at the shareholders meetings by the administrators of the pension schemes.

So in reality you have a disguised form of public ownership here and the decisions are all made by committee who don't own the company rather than by greedy rich Capitalist owner.

I mean, why would he care about controlling US oil through the government, if he already controls most of the oil in the US plus exclusiverly gets all the benefits

He is more concerned about controlling the world rather than just the oil, so now he doesn't own the oil company but he controls the Government through his place men on the committees of the corporations.

[veritasvoice]

Is this another joke? :confused:

Please go on, tell us one by one how all those 10 planks are implemented in the US and the UK... :)

First, do yourself a favor and look up CORPORATISM - it used to be called mercantilism back in the day; state-backed monopoly of enterprise and trade. Adam Smith originally wrote "Wealth of Nations" to describe a system of free enterprise between individuals to replace it. That system has never ever been implemented.

Second - you can find out the rest of the info easily enough using a basic search engine. I'm not your trained monkey.

[flyermay]

No, the entire central banking system is institutionally corrupt - so is the model of the state that has been prevalent for at least the last 2000 years. Statism is by its very nature oppressive, and contrary to the ideal of equal, unalienable human rights.

ALL government is a necessary evil, at best. People have been encouraged to forget this fact. No politician can ever represent your interests better than you can - and none of them follow the law.

Ask yourself - what does it say for someone to run for a position where they will have power and authority over their fellow man? And people wonder why politicians are almost always sociopaths/psychopaths?

Ok, stop, stop, stop... don't start jumping from subject to subject.

We are talking about central banks, right?

We want debt-free money, right?

We want our central banks to be public and not private, right?

We want our government issuing money without paying interests, right?

We want to end the national debts, right?

Well.... there you go.... plank number 5!!!! lol :D

Oh my God, these people don't know what they want. It's really sad... :(

Please, stop to think before you start posting nonsense... I'll answer you tomorrow.

[bendoon]

You must be joking... do you realise that that's exactly what all anti-NWO people want, including you? :Dl

So you want a state bank controlled by someone like, err, Tony Blair or Stalin or Hitler, maybe even Gordon Brown or Cameron ?

[veritasvoice]

Ok, stop, stop, stop... don't start jumping from subject to subject.

We are talking about central banks, right?

We want debt-free money, right?

We want our central banks to be public and not private, right?

We want our government issuing money without paying interests, right?

We want to end the national debts, right?

Well.... there you go.... plank number 5!!!! lol :D

Oh my God, these people don't know what they want. It's really sad... :(

Please, stop to think before you start posting nonsense... I'll answer you tomorrow.

I'm not "jumping from subject to subject". All of these topics are connected.

Recommended reading:
~ what central banking is
~ what fractional reserves are
~ how the modern banking system came into being
~ what government is
~the origins of communism
~ the inevitable end result of installing a communist state.

Karl Marx was a blood relative of the Rothschilds. Russia did not have a central bank before the Russian Revolution, which was spurred on by economic turmoil. From my point of view, communism should be properly viewed as an economic weapon, designed to take economic independence away from the people, and put control of currency into the hands of a small, corrupt elite.

The Federal Reserve is the number one example of a central bank, WORKING AS INTENDED. It will not get any less institutionally corrupt by putting different politicians in control of it - because a free society shouldn't have politicians running people's lives for them.

I'm sure that "we" don't want central banking, or central ANYTHING. Free human beings would be better off if everything was decentralized, including banking, food production and energy production - because then you couldn't have centralized control and people could be self-reliant, and independent from the state, corporations and majority.

And as far as "these people"...unless you're a billionaire connected to the political/financial elite, you're very much in the same boat as the rest of us, so maybe you should stop being condescending. At best, it comes across as if you're trolling.

[kappy0405]

Well, they do show their opposition, since they are the first to push the government's intervention against any country that even thinks about nationalizing (i.e. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.)yes, but that’s a bit different than nationalizing industry in a nation whose government they already control, which would give them more control. The ptb can’t infiltrate/takeover a nation if they’re isolated from the global economy & not prone to a western corporate invasion, hence why they move in militarily or with regime change, etc..
And it is true that they would get rid of other corporations, but not by gaining control of a monopoly, but by simply closing that market. Many people confuse nationalisation with monopoly, but they are two very different things, and from a business point of view a nationalisation is not a monopoly (actually you could arguy it is the opposite).I agree that nationalization is not a monopoly in technical, business terms.. however, considering it is the top oil companies & the top banks who control the governments of the West, nationalizing those industries would technically consolidate their power over them, right? It would just take the form of a government takeover rather than a corporate one, but ultimately, it would be the same crooks involved.
Yes, but why would they give away their companies and future finantial benefits. The US government will repay them anyway, whether or not anything is nationalised. The Fed cannot touch any sources of income of the US government, just what it's owed to it. So, by giving them extra sources of income would not benefit them in any way. right, but they wouldn’t really be giving anything to the government because they ARE the government at this point. Maybe nationalization isn’t the right word then, even though that’s what would appear on the surface.
I realise that this things are quite confusing, and that many do look like nationalisation. But either way, nationalisation is not socialism; just look at the case of Europe, where most countries still have many nationalised institutions and organisations, but still are under the same capitalist system as the US. point taken.. but I think it’s fair to assume that nationalization would eventually lead to a more direct role by the government. Will they really take on such a huge financial investment in a company without exerting the influence that they have a right to?

[kappy0405]

You obviously have absolutely no clue what central banking is, what fractional reserves are, how the modern banking system came into being, or the origins of communism.and you obviously have no idea what Communism is. You have a state bank and state control in a Socialist or Capitalist government. This has nothing to do with Communism, where there is no state and more importantly no bank.

[nosebleed]

Yeah well if the bankers created all these movements why not just take the bits they liked out of one , and ditch other bits , i personally think the NWO is a combination of - Communism , Fascism , Socialism , or any other ism , and they dont give a shit as long as they are at the top.

Why does it have to be one or the other ?

[kappy0405]

Well if you prefer the term "authoritarian Socialist" fair enough, then I would say that the NWO will be authoritarian Socialist and not Communist.

I can reason with that. :cool:

I would say it's a combination of authoritarian-Socialist policies and Corporatism/dirty Capitalism.

But most would argue that Corporatism is a natural result of Capitalism.. To be fair, we wouldn't have devolved into a plutocratic society without the populace's ignorance, apathy, & inability to keep the system in check. I guess we can't really blame that on Capitalism itself.

[veritasvoice]

Yeah well if the bankers created all these movements why not just take the bits they liked out of one , and ditch other bits , i personally think the NWO is a combination of - Communism , Fascism , Socialism , or any other ism , and they dont give a shit as long as they are at the top.

Why does it have to be one or the other ?

Because all these variations on a theme are intended to do one thing; strip individuals of their equal unalienable rights, completely erase liberty and place all power in the hands of an all-encompassing state.

The "isms" are meaningless labels at the end of the day. You can only ever have two actual government systems - totalitarian oligarchies (which includes dictatorships, democracies and monarchies), or free republics. And republics have been historically short-lived due to the general tendency of human beings to forget the lessons of history, and be apathetic towards politics and power. Oligarchy in one form or another has been the typical system of government that the human race has suffered under for thousands of years.

[nosebleed]

Because all these variations on a theme are intended to do one thing; strip individuals of their equal unalienable rights, completely erase liberty and place all power in the hands of an all-encompassing state.

The "isms" are meaningless labels at the end of the day. You can only ever have two actual government systems - totalitarian oligarchies (which includes dictatorships, democracies and monarchies), or free republics. And republics have been historically short-lived due to the general tendency of human beings to forget the lessons of history, and be apathetic towards politics and power. Oligarchy in one form or another has been the typical system of government that the human race has suffered under for thousands of years.

It will be Capitalism for the elites at the top , and a form of Communism , hardline Socialism for everyone else , it will be like the USSR but more hi-tech , Scientific Socialism would be an appropriate term.

[veritasvoice]

It will be Capitalism for the elites at the top , and a form of Communism , hardline Socialism for everyone else , it will be like the USSR but more hi-tech , Scientific Socialism would be an appropriate term.

The jackboots are going to feel the same regardless.

It would be more accurate to say "The New World Order is GLOBAL TOTALITARIANISM", and to understand that this is just the latest in a long line of mechanisms designed to take away individual rights, and concentrate power in the hands of a few. The NWO is really a rebranding of the Old World Order.

[nosebleed]

The jackboots are going to feel the same regardless.

It would be more accurate to say "The New World Order is GLOBAL TOTALITARIANISM", and to understand that this is just the latest in a long line of mechanisms designed to take away individual rights, and concentrate power in the hands of a few. The NWO is really a rebranding of the Old World Order.

Yeah i hear what your saying its all the same bullshit at the end a the day , but they still need the masses compliance for it to work , and if enough people can see it for what it actually is and start saying no , it will fail :)

[flyermay]

This is where most people go wrong, they think that rich people own Multi National Corporations and this gives rise to the idea of "rich greedy Capitalists" exploiting the workers. Well they don't, all the owners of the large companies sold out years ago and their money is in tax exempt foundations, or maybe if you are into conspiracy hidden in the FED or the BIS or whatever. The largest shareholders in the world by far are pension funds containing the money of ordinary workers and the largest of these are State and local Government pension schemes in the US.

So in reality Multi National Corporations are owned by ordinary people, but they don't own enough to have a say on an individual level, the decisions are made at the shareholders meetings by the administrators of the pension schemes.

So in reality you have a disguised form of public ownership here and the decisions are all made by committee who don't own the company rather than by greedy rich Capitalist owner.

And could you tell me who owns the financial institutions that provide pension schemes? Who sits on the boards of large corporations? Who has in its hands enough stock to influence in company meetings?

Of course they don't own any large producer anymore; they don't need to, they own the financial institutions that own those corporations. Mayer Rothschild, JD Rockefeller and JP Morgan (for example) are long gone; their foundations and corporations own them on behalf of their descendants: the RIT Capital Partners, The J. Rothschild Assurance Group, The Rockefeller Family Fund, The Rockefeller Group, Rockefeller & Co., Venrock Associates, Rockefeller Trust Company, Rockefeller Insurance Company, Acadia Risk Management, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Morgan Stanley, Morgan Grenfell, etc, etc, etc.

Pensioners own the world.... are you kidding me???

[flyermay]

So you want a state bank controlled by someone like, err, Tony Blair or Stalin or Hitler, maybe even Gordon Brown or Cameron ?

Yes, that's what David Icke, Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jordan Maxwell, you, the rest of this forum, and the whole truth-seeker movements have been asking for since the beginning.

What???.... now you don't like it because you found out it's Marx's plank number 5? :cool:

[flyermay]

Recommended reading:
~ what central banking is
~ what fractional reserves are
~ how the modern banking system came into being
~ what government is
~ the origins of communism
~ the inevitable end result of installing a communist state.

Well, since you are not willing to enlighten us on how Marx's 10 planks have been implemented in the US, you might like to enlighten us on what all those things are, and how they prove communism controls the world....

... oh, and I'm not asking because I think you are "my monkey", but because it is obviously that you have made huge discoveries that the whole world has simply missed and should know about.

[flyermay]

Karl Marx was a blood relative of the Rothschilds.

Is that true? What "blood relation" did Marx exactly had with the Rothschilds?

Russia did not have a central bank before the Russian Revolution, which was spurred on by economic turmoil. From my point of view, communism should be properly viewed as an economic weapon, designed to take economic independence away from the people, and put control of currency into the hands of a small, corrupt elite.

Is that also true? I thought the central bank of Russia was funded in 1990, casually when they embraced capitalism.

I also thought that the Tsars had already a central bank from 1860 to 1917, called "The State Bank of the Russian Empire"; I was obviously wrong: your evidences clearly show that the communists opened the first one.

The Federal Reserve is the number one example of a central bank, WORKING AS INTENDED. It will not get any less institutionally corrupt by putting different politicians in control of it - because a free society shouldn't have politicians running people's lives for them.

Dam you Karl Marx! If you didn't propose a public state bank issuing debt-free money we wouldn't have the FED.

And as far as "these people"...unless you're a billionaire connected to the political/financial elite, you're very much in the same boat as the rest of us, so maybe you should stop being condescending. At best, it comes across as if you're trolling.

That's funny, I thought you were the troll, since you are the one who disagrees with me. Actually, if we both disagree with each other, aren't we both trolls; by your definition? :eek:

No seriously, you are the one making up statements simply based on your hate for communism; a hatred put in your head by the same capitalist elite you are trying to fight. And now I'm the one who is condescending... did you really think that no one on this forum was going to stop you spreading the misinformation and the lies that the elite made up to keep you all under their control?

You are simply shilling for them... and the worst part is that you don't even know it.

[luciferhorus]

Yes, that's what David Icke, Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jordan Maxwell, you, the rest of this forum, and the whole truth-seeker movements have been asking for since the beginning.

What???.... now you don't like it because you found out it's Marx's plank number 5? :cool:



"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc."


http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html


It seems to me that since many activists from Myron Fagan to Alex Jones who have allegedly been opponents of the New World Order, have also themselves been anti-Communists, that they have had a tendency to describe the current "International Dictatorship of Capitalism" as a "Communist" conspiracy.

This is a special pleading of the highest order and a totally ridiculous allegation. Despite American capital having financed both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis (they often finance both sides in wars anyway, purely for profit motives) the American state terrorists have had a long and consistent history of fighting Communism around the world and supporting numerous anti-Communist revolutions of the far right in Latin America; if the US state terrorists were truly Communists, and not Capitalists, there would be no trade embargo with Cuba and the US would be sending miitary aid to Cuba to support the expansion of Communist revolution

If we look at the 10 point plan above, only points 2 and 10 referring to taxation and education have been implimented to some degree in most Capitalist states.

With regards to:

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

This is certainly "not" the agenda of the world's leading bankers; in fact it would disempower them and it is probably their worst nightmare; however it "is" what is being proposed by David Icke, Alex Jones and numerous other opponents of the current "Federal Reserve" system in the US.

Nationalisation of banking, which is currently the system used by the Bank of China and the Cuban Central Bank would certainly increase the wealth of the nation and money would no longer be issued "to" the US government as debt, but rather would be issued "by" the US government; this would not be a Communist system and could well lead to giving much greater economic power to the world's leading terrorist state, the USA.

Lux

[flyermay]

It seems to me that since many activists from Myron Fagan to Alex Jones who have allegedly been opponents of the New World Order, have also themselves been anti-Communists, that they have had a tendency to describe the current "International Dictatorship of Capitalism" as a "Communist" conspiracy.

I've notice that Icke has never associated the NWO with communism in his entire career, not once. You can imagine my surprise when on a recent interview promoting his new book he has also jumped on the anti-communist wagon.

There are just two things in common among all leading conspiracy theorists: they are all nationalists and anti-communists; without exception. It's no coincidence that most of the *real* opposition to TPTB (i.e. Chomsky, Parenti, Pilger, etc), who by the way, are all well accredited academics, are actually anti-nationalists and anti-capitalists.

I'm saying no more, each one reach your own conclusions.

This is a special pleading of the highest order and a totally ridiculous allegation. Despite American capital having financed both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis (they often finance both sides in wars anyway, purely for profit motives) the American state terrorists have had a long and consistent history of fighting Communism around the world and supporting numerous anti-Communist revolutions of the far right in Latin America; if the US state terrorists were truly Communists, and not Capitalists, there would be no trade embargo with Cuba and the US would be sending miitary aid to Cuba to support the expansion of Communist revolution.

This is certainly "not" the agenda of the world's leading bankers; in fact it would disempower them and it is probably their worst nightmare; however it "is" what is being proposed by David Icke, Alex Jones and numerous other opponents of the current "Federal Reserve" system in the US.

Nationalisation of banking, which is currently the system used by the Bank of China and the Cuban Central Bank would certainly increase the wealth of the nation and money would no longer be issued "to" the US government as debt, but rather would be issued "by" the US government; this would not be a Communist system and could well lead to giving much greater economic power to the world's leading terrorist state, the USA.

Lux

It doesn't matter how many evidences we come up with against these people's argument, they simply ignore them caught on the idea that communism has to be responsible for everything that goes wrong. I just realised that being an anti-communist for them is not a personal decision, they have been raised and educated to defend their capitalist masters; it’s beyond them…

Furthermore, all these people even want to give the capitalist elite more powers than they have today; they want a completely free market!!! It's just madness...

[luciferhorus]

It doesn't matter how many evidences we come up with against these people's argument, they simply ignore them caught on the idea that communism has to be responsible for everything that goes wrong. I just realised that being an anti-communist for them is not a personal decision, they have been raised and educated to defend their capitalist masters; it’s beyond them…



In some ways I suppose that it is understandable that many persons raised since birth in the Capitalist system, with a lifelong barragement of media advertising telling them that one soap powder is better than another would end up as "Capitalists" defending their system; this is perhaps what we would expect from those who are Capitalism's "lost souls" but we would expect much more from those who appear to be idealists, philosophers and highly educated and literate persons; and indeed what we do find is that is usually among intellectuals and academics that the anti-Capitalist "left" has it's ideological breeding ground. Personally I found that it was when I was at university that I was constantly barraged with anti-Capitalist rehtoric; after all that is often what an education does, it is turns a person into a critical thinker who analyses the economic problems of the world and proposes solutions, pinpoints enemies etc.



Furthermore, all these people even want to give the capitalist elite more powers than they have today; they want a completely free market!!! It's just madness...

Unfortunately two very similar ideologies which have emerged, Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism, while very "liberal" sounding are in fact "far-Rightist" ideologies of Capitalist extremism.

I have deabated these issues over the years on Anarcho-Capitalist discussion groups and I have given on the main Anarcho-Capitalist discussion group on myspace as the discussions just go around and around in circles with the same points being debated.

Ultimately Libertarians want a small government with little interference and virtually unfettered laissez faire (anything goes) Capitalism; it is little more than a recipie for gangster Capitalism, whereas Anarcho-Capitalism is even more extreme than this where it is proposed that there would be no government at all and pure laissez faire Capitalism where the "police" would simply be employees of corporations; it is very much like just letting the mafia, corporations and the organised criminals run the police and the military.

The "socialist" state Capitalist model where all persons are ensured food, health care, housing and where all corporations, industries and banks are nationalised is the common alternative model, however the failures in the Communist experiments of the 20th century and the tendency for such regimes to turn into Orwellian police state nightmares certainly make disturbing historical reading which hopefully future socialist experiments will learn from, however this is a model which would clearly benefit the poorest nations on earth, particularly Africa and also Latin America where the Cuban model is considered more of an ideal than the more repressive Stalinist Soviet model.

Ultimately government is often a very dangerous thing and Socialist experiments often turn into Orwellian nightmares, which is why I tend to find the Anarchist models of Communism less dangerous, though we will to wait for a the future world for large scale Anarchist experiments.

Ultimately agricultural and technological collectivism of the more idealistic Israeli and Cuban models, is I believe the only hope for the creation of economic heaven on earth, however I am rather loath to support any form of large government due to the many failed experiments of the past.

We live in an age where nuclear war is almost inevitable and future wars will most likely be guerrilla wars, fought from anonimity "against" tyrannies (governments) rather than between governments. It looks like it is set to be an age of terror where the greatest nations on earth will be brought down not by large standing armies, but by the application of physics.

Lux

[meksar]

New Oz PM is Lesbian Communist

In a dramatic coup on June 24 2010, Julia Gillard who was Deputy Prime Minister took over as Prime Minister from Kevin Rudd and became Australia's first female PM. It occurred at a time Rudd was taking a battering in the polls and was not well liked within his own party.

Gillard is the first PM to be unmarried and a lesbian. She is in a relationship to Tim Mathieson - who is a "beard." She is the first PM to be sworn in without making reference to God. (Gillard is an atheist and has no religious beliefs.) She was sworn in by Australia's first female Governor General (Quentin Bryce.) Bryce has held numerous high offices with the aim of advancing women's and "minority" rights at the expense of the Australia's European majority. Bryce's daughter is married to Bill Shorten who was pivotal in binging Gillard into the office of PM.

http://www.henrymakow.com/new_aussie_pm_is_communist_les.html

[bendoon]

Who sits on the boards of large corporations? Who has in its hands enough stock to influence in company meetings?

The people who sit on the boards don't own them. There are very few major companies that are owned by private individuals.

Pensioners own the world.... are you kidding me???

They own more than anyone else, look it up. And don't try to trivialise it, its not "pensioners" but anyone who has any money in a private or company pension scheme.

Yes, that's what David Icke, Alex Jones, Ron Paul, Jordan Maxwell, you, the rest of this forum, and the whole truth-seeker movements have been asking for since the beginning.

Well I don't, I don't want a central bank, there is no need for one, don't forget the US was opposed to having one till they got tricked into it in 1913.

It's no coincidence that most of the *real* opposition to TPTB (i.e. Chomsky

Chomsky :rolleyes:

Mr Left gatekeeper himself, what a crook.

[flyermay]

In some ways I suppose that it is understandable that many persons raised since birth in the Capitalist system, with a lifelong barragement of media advertising telling them that one soap powder is better than another would end up as "Capitalists" defending their system; this is perhaps what we would expect from those who are Capitalism's "lost souls" but we would expect much more from those who appear to be idealists, philosophers and highly educated and literate persons; and indeed what we do find is that is usually among intellectuals and academics that the anti-Capitalist "left" has it's ideological breeding ground. Personally I found that it was when I was at university that I was constantly barraged with anti-Capitalist rehtoric; after all that is often what an education does, it is turns a person into a critical thinker who analyses the economic problems of the world and proposes solutions, pinpoints enemies etc.

Unfortunately two very similar ideologies which have emerged, Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism, while very "liberal" sounding are in fact "far-Rightist" ideologies of Capitalist extremism.

I have deabated these issues over the years on Anarcho-Capitalist discussion groups and I have given on the main Anarcho-Capitalist discussion group on myspace as the discussions just go around and around in circles with the same points being debated.

Ultimately Libertarians want a small government with little interference and virtually unfettered laissez faire (anything goes) Capitalism; it is little more than a recipie for gangster Capitalism, whereas Anarcho-Capitalism is even more extreme than this where it is proposed that there would be no government at all and pure laissez faire Capitalism where the "police" would simply be employees of corporations; it is very much like just letting the mafia, corporations and the organised criminals run the police and the military.

The "socialist" state Capitalist model where all persons are ensured food, health care, housing and where all corporations, industries and banks are nationalised is the common alternative model, however the failures in the Communist experiments of the 20th century and the tendency for such regimes to turn into Orwellian police state nightmares certainly make disturbing historical reading which hopefully future socialist experiments will learn from, however this is a model which would clearly benefit the poorest nations on earth, particularly Africa and also Latin America where the Cuban model is considered more of an ideal than the more repressive Stalinist Soviet model.

Ultimately government is often a very dangerous thing and Socialist experiments often turn into Orwellian nightmares, which is why I tend to find the Anarchist models of Communism less dangerous, though we will to wait for a the future world for large scale Anarchist experiments.

Ultimately agricultural and technological collectivism of the more idealistic Israeli and Cuban models, is I believe the only hope for the creation of economic heaven on earth, however I am rather loath to support any form of large government due to the many failed experiments of the past.

We live in an age where nuclear war is almost inevitable and future wars will most likely be guerrilla wars, fought from anonimity "against" tyrannies (governments) rather than between governments. It looks like it is set to be an age of terror where the greatest nations on earth will be brought down not by large standing armies, but by the application of physics.

Lux

Yes, that would be the normal development towards an anti-capitalist view for those who do any study or research; regardless of being born under capitalism. You don't even need to go too deep to reach the conclusion capitalism is solely responsible for empowering the economic elite to enslaving every human being. But that's not what's happening on this forum...

I've been trying to figure out why; why are these people caught on the idea that capitalism is good and communism is bad, when they can see evidences of the contrary everywhere. And the answer is very simple: the leading “researchers” are putting those thoughts on these people's minds; they are dismissing all the evidences against capitalism and imperialism, and exaggerating and making up claims against communism; to the point of saying that the elite are covert communists that really what world communism.

It's just madness... and it basically comes down to a simple flawed logic: if it's bad, it must be something to do with communism. And people fall for it... and why not; don't they fall for the reptilians and the moon matrix?

I'm starting to think that the anti-NWO movement is nothing more than a way to get people back into capitalism and put them again on the right anti-communist track.

The anti-NWO movement is actually resurrecting two ideas that were already disregarded as flawed by all political activists, and actually anyone with common sense: capitalism and nationalism. And it’s no coincidence that all these researchers are both: capitalists and nationalists.

[flyermay]

The people who sit on the boards don't own them. There are very few major companies that are owned by private individuals.

They own more than anyone else, look it up. And don't try to trivialise it, its not "pensioners" but anyone who has any money in a private or company pension scheme.

Well I don't, I don't want a central bank, there is no need for one, don't forget the US was opposed to having one till they got tricked into it in 1913.

I told you already, that the most wealthy families are represented by their corporations and foundations, and not by individuals; and I even gave you a list of foundations that exclusively look after the interests of the Rothschild, Rockefeller and Morgan families (which is just the tip of the iceberg). If that wasn't enough, their financial companies, controlled through their foundations, are the ones who provide anyone with any fund, and therefore they have direct control over most companies through these finanatial companies; who do sit in the board meetings, unlike fund investors.

Average Joe just puts his savings in these people's hands in the hope that they would get the scraps left over from the big pie.

[bendoon]

is these people caught on the idea that capitalism is good and communism is bad,

You have been led to believe that you have a choice between Communism and Capitalism, well its not like that you have just bought a car from a dodgy used car salesman.

I told you already, that the most wealthy families are represented by their corporations and foundations, and not by individuals;

Wrong.

The largest shareholders in the world are US state and City Government workers pension schemes.

The misleading numbers posted by retirement fund administrators help mask this reality: Public pensions in the U.S. had total liabilities of $2.9 trillion as of Dec. 16, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. Their total assets are about 30 percent less than that, at $2 trillion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alwTE0Z5.1EA

[flyermay]

Well I don't, I don't want a central bank, there is no need for one, don't forget the US was opposed to having one till they got tricked into it in 1913.

What are you talking about, who will issue the money that you will need in your capitalists society? Who issued Washington's, Jefferson's, Lincoln's money?.... Where are going to get the money from?... are you going to print it at home?

[flyermay]

Chomsky :rolleyes:

Mr Left gatekeeper himself, what a crook.

The truth ofter hurst... specially when it comes from someone who does know exactly what he is talking about.

[bendoon]

What are you talking about, who will issue the money that you will need in your capitalists society? Who issued Washington's, Jefferson's, Lincoln's money?.... Where are going to get the money from?... are you going to print it at home?

I don't want a Capitalist society and the Treasury issues the money, its really that simple. If the treasury can issue a 1 trillion dollar bond and sell it on the market for 1 trillion dollars and pay interest it can issue 1 trillion dollars in cash instead and pay no interest.

[flyermay]

I don't want a Capitalist society and the Treasury issues the money, its really that simple. If the treasury can issue a 1 trillion dollar bond and sell it on the market for 1 trillion dollars and pay interest it can issue 1 trillion dollars in cash instead and pay no interest.

So, does the Treasury issues the money at home, in a local bank, or in a national bank (aka a central bank)?

How is your Treasury different from Marx's Treasury and the anti-NWO Treasury?

[bendoon]

So, does the Treasury issues the money at home, in a local bank, or in a national bank (aka a central bank)?

How is your Treasury different from Marx's Treasury and the anti-NWO Treasury?

Unlike many countries, Guernsey has not delegated money-creation to the central bank and has instead issued interest-free money from 1822 to 1836, stimulating the growth of economy after Napoleon's wars without creating public debt and without increasing taxes. There is evidence that introducing fiat money (either via a central bank or without one) "stimulates the growth of the economy" in the long term. Also gold and silver coin remained money in Guernsey in the period 1822 to 1836 - and indeed long after.

Guernsey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany did the same thing in the 1930's which was the real reason for ww2.

[flyermay]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernsey

Germany did the same thing in the 1930's which was the real reason for ww2.

You still don't get the idea... a central bank is a central bank whether or not it issues debt-free money or at interest; a central bank is a central bank whether the state (public) owns it or it's privately owned (private); a central bank is a central bank whether or not the state (public) controls it or private investors (private) control it... a central bank is a central bank whether it is public or private.

Your ideal central bank is Marx's idea of a central bank in plank number 5... you are a Marxist; but you don't know it!!! :D

[my_pseudonym]

Communism was the bait designed to hook the disaffected, and never the final goal of those propagating it. After all, why would the world's most powerful capitalists support a movement that intended their liquidation? (See Antony C. Sutton's Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution).

No, the actual goal is domination of the international financial system and of the world's resources by a small, privileged elite. This is why one of the first acts of the Bolsheviks was to create a nationalised bank. And what better way to gain control of a nation's resources and industry than by eliminating one's competitors? I even venture to suggest that the Cold War was nothing more than a smokescreen, as the USSR was the antithesis needed by the New World Orderers for them to consolidate and organise the rest of the world in preparation for their rule.

At any rate, Marxist ideology is alive and well; it has merely been transposed from economic terms into cultural terms and dominates our lives daily in the form of 'political correctness'. I urge you all to read this little eBook to understand where our governments are leading us.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2674655/Political-Correctness-A-Short-History

[flyermay]

Communism was the bait designed to hook the disaffected, and never the final goal of those propagating it. After all, why would the world's most powerful capitalists support a movement that intended their liquidation? (See Antony C. Sutton's Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution).

No, the actual goal is domination of the international financial system and of the world's resources by a small, privileged elite. This is why one of the first acts of the Bolsheviks was to create a nationalised bank. And what better way to gain control of a nation's resources and industry than by eliminating one's competitors? I even venture to suggest that the Cold War was nothing more than a smokescreen, as the USSR was the antithesis needed by the New World Orderers for them to consolidate and organise the rest of the world in preparation for their rule.

At any rate, Marxist ideology is alive and well; it has merely been transposed from economic terms into cultural terms and dominates our lives daily in the form of 'political correctness'. I urge you all to read this little eBook to understand where our governments are leading us.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2674655/Political-Correctness-A-Short-History

This is common among capitalists: they can't conceive any action if there isn't any economic gain involved. It is impossible for a capitalist to understand ideas as communism and anarchism; they will always automatically link them some covert capitalist decption for a hidden plan towards an economic and/or political gain.

But the truth is that there are no powerful capitalists promoting communism, and there never were; this simply never happened. It is an historical fact that Wall Street bankers didn't gave Trotsky their money because they wanted Russia to be communist, but because they wanted the Tsar out of the way to implement a privately owned central bank in Russia (which never happened until 1990) and to get the Tsar's vast oil reserves.

It is another historical fact that Russia already had a nationalised central bank way before the communist revolution; it was called "The State Bank of the Russian Empire", and was operative from 1860 to 1917; comming to an end with the Russian Revolution.

You can simply continue to ignore all these facts; I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just prevent other people from being deceived by your lies, which only help the elite keep their control over all of us.

[flyermay]

I just realised that most people here don't know the difference between a central bank, a national bank, a private bank and a public bank. How are you people going to change anything, if you don't even know what you are talking about? :confused:


Banking 101 [this is just ridiculous :(]

Central bank: A central bank is a bank that issues a country's currency. It can: be privately owned, publicly owned, state controlled, privately controlled, issue debt-free money, money at an interest, have control over other banks, have no control over other banks.... bottom line, all banks that have the exclusive power of issuing a country's currency are "central banks"; therefore, a central bank is neither good or bad, and there cannot be an economy at a national level without a central bank... period. This can be a non-profitable or profitable organisation.

National bank: A national bank is simply a bank that operates at a national level; it has nothing to do with a central or nationalised bank. It can be private or public, and therefore, a non-profitable or profitable organisation.

Local bank: A local bank is simply a bank that operates at a local level. It can be private or public, therefore, a non-profitable or profitable organisation.

Nationalised bank: A nationalised bank is a bank that has passed from private ownership to public ownership. It is public from the moment of nationalisation, therefore, a non-profitable organisation.

Private bank: A private bank is a bank that is owned and controlled by private interests. It is private, therefore, a for profit organisation.

Public bank: A public bank is a bank that is not owned and controlled by private interests, but by the state (the public). Public, therefore, a non-profitable organisation.

State bank: A state bank is the same as a public bank, it's owned and controlled by the state (the public). Public, therefore, a non-profitable organisation.

State central bank: A state central bank is the combination of a state bank, a central bank, and a national bank; therefore, the bank that issues a country's currency is owned and controlled by the state (it's public). It DOES NOT issue any money at an interest to the government, because it is the government that owns and controls the bank. This bank is a non-profitable organisation.

Private central bank: A privately owned central bank is the combination of a private bank, a central bank, and a national bank; therefore, the bank issues a country's currency but it's not owned by the state (it's private). IT DOES charge interests to a government for issuing money, because the state does not own or control this bank. This bank is a for profit organisation.


Conclusion:

The issue is not the type of bank, its area of operations, or whether it's central or national; it's in whether or not it is private or public, for profit or non-profitable, and whether it charges interests for issuing money or debt-free money.

[my_pseudonym]

This is common among capitalists: they can't conceive any action if there isn't any economic gain involved. It is impossible for a capitalist to understand ideas as communism and anarchism; they will always automatically link them some covert capitalist decption for a hidden plan towards an economic and/or political gain.

Exactly, Communism—along with Nazism, which elite capitalists also funded—was simply an item in their toolbox.

But the truth is that there are no powerful capitalists promoting communism, and there never were; this simply never happened. It is an historical fact that Wall Street bankers didn't gave Trotsky their money because they wanted Russia to be communist, but because they wanted the Tsar out of the way to implement a privately owned central bank in Russia (which never happened until 1990) and to get the Tsar's vast oil reserves.

I would like to know where these claims of yours were proven as historical facts.

I am not going to waste space by pasting the relevant passages of a short, freely-available book here (unless someone requests me to do so), so I will simply point interested persons to Gary Allen's well-researched None Dare Call It Conspiracy.

It is another historical fact that Russia already had a nationalised central bank way before the communist revolution; it was called "The State Bank of the Russian Empire", and was operative from 1860 to 1917; comming to an end with the Russian Revolution.

Russia was not the USSR. Bear in mind that Lenin believed the revolutions in Russia would link up with similar uprisings in Western Europe; this bank would be in control over the economies of the world's foremost industrialised nations and their colonies. Eventually, of course, the whole world was intended to be included in this federation, as per orthodox Marxist teachings.

You can simply continue to ignore all these facts; I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just prevent other people from being deceived by your lies, which only help the elite keep their control over all of us.

Being called a liar for desiring to bring light to suppressed facts of world history is deeply offensive; I'm used to the term 'crackpot', however. :)

[flyermay]

Exactly, Communism—along with Nazism, which elite capitalists also funded—was simply an item in their toolbox.

I would like to know where these claims of yours were proven as historical facts.

I am not going to waste space by pasting the relevant passages of a short, freely-available book here (unless someone requests me to do so), so I will simply point interested persons to Gary Allen's well-researched None Dare Call It Conspiracy.

Oh, I get it, so because Gary Allen said so it must be true; did you even check out if what he says is the truth? Gary Allen is a free-lance journalist and is entitled to his opinion, the same with William G. Carr and Alex Jones. But, where does it says that what these people claim must be the truth; I seem to have lost that meeting?

The day you show me that any of these people are able to speak freely and objectively about communism without being biased by a strong anti-communist sentiment provoked by their patriotism, that day I will believe that any of them might tell the truth. Until that day, I will stick with what I found for myself (which casually matches the accepted historical facts), which is that: in 1917 Trotsky received in New York $20 million from Jacob Schiff, and further money from Sir George Buchanan, the Warburg family, the Rockefellers family, the partners of J.P. Morgan (with at least another $1 million), Olaf Aschberg (of the Nye Bank of Stockholm, Sweden), the Rhine Westphalian Syndicate, a financier named Jovotovsky (whose daughter later married Trotsky himself), William Boyce Thompson (a director of Chase National Bank who contributed $1 million), and Albert H. Wiggin (President of Chase National Bank). The reasons: 1, both America’s Standard Oil, which belonged to the Rockefeller family, and the Royal Dutch Shell, of which the Rothschild family were the major stock holders, had interests in the rich Russian oil fields, which belonged to the Tsar Nicholas II; 2, the last three Tsars of Russia (Alexander II, Alexander III and Nicholas II) had always opposed the creation of a privately owned Central Bank in Russia under the ownership of the international bankers. That's the reason they funded the Bolsheviks. But funding the Bolsheviks was not about communism, it was about getting rid of the Tsar and try to take control over Russia; which ultimately didn't happen.

Similar with the Nazis; it was not about Nazism, it was about benefits (which is all that matters to capitalists).

Russia was not the USSR. Bear in mind that Lenin believed the revolutions in Russia would link up with similar uprisings in Western Europe; this bank would be in control over the economies of the world's foremost industrialised nations and their colonies. Eventually, of course, the whole world was intended to be included in this federation, as per orthodox Marxist teachings.

Makes no difference, you claimed that the Bolsheviks created the first central bank in Russia/USSR; this is a lie. Russia already had a central bank before the communist revolution; this is a fact. You claim that the Bolsheviks created a bank for the Wall Street bankers, this is a lie; the USSR always issued debt free money through a state central bank, and this continued until 1990. There was no difference between the Tsar's bank and the Bolsheviks' bank; both were state owned and issued debt-free money.

Being called a liar for desiring to bring light to suppressed facts of world history is deeply offensive; I'm used to the term 'crackpot', however. :)

It makes no difference if the lies you are spreading are yours or from this Gary Allen; it’s up to you to check if what this guy says is true or not.

[shed7628]

For all those who dont think that NWO is going to be a communist system well no amount of debate will convince you otherwise.

Unfortunately by the time we no longer have money but you have your weekly credit allowance to pay for your water and air(Carbon footprint) and bread and they can deduct credits for not being a good citizen we wont have this forum so i can give myself a little self satisfaction to say i told you so.

[flyermay]

For all those who dont think that NWO is going to be a communist system well no amount of debate will convince you otherwise.

That's true, unless you come up with *real* evidences, instead of the personal opinion of whatever free-lance, you will never be able to convince me or anyone else with common sense of what you are saying is the truth.

Unfortunately by the time we no longer have money but you have your weekly credit allowance to pay for your water and air(Carbon footprint) and bread and they can deduct credits for not being a good citizen we wont have this forum so i can give myself a little self satisfaction to say i told you so.

It makes no difference how scared you are of communism; saying how much you despise it will not change the fact that the NWO is nothing more than a gang of ruthless capitalists who would do anything for a buck; even keep 1 billion people hungry around the world as we speak, when there's enough food to throw away.

The capitalist elite are enormously grateful to you for being so scared of communism; that's the only thing that keeps us all under their total control. I'm afraid that the hungry 1 billion will not be sharing this gratitude.

[shed7628]

It makes no difference how scared you are of communism;

i not scared of much, and definitely not some poky NWO communists.

When you talk about communism you are talking about your idea of communism but unfortunately they are not implementing your idea of communism they are implementing Karls idea of communism.

[flyermay]

i not scared of much, at definitely not some poky NWO communists.

Then, there's nothing to worry about my friend. ;)

[bendoon]

gang of ruthless capitalists who would do anything for a buck;

They have no interest in money other than as a means of control, the only thing they are interested in is power which is much more easily enforced under a Communist system

They didn't build the Berlin wall to stop people fleeing Capitalist persecution into a Communist paradise you know.

[mr stoppitall]

Glad you realise it :D

At last.



Ssshh, don't tell anyone but its just a trick, they get to keep their power but everyone else is enslaved.
on the money

[kappy0405]

When you talk about communism you are talking about your idea of communism but unfortunately they are not implementing your idea of communism they are implementing Karls idea of communism.

No, they're not. They're implementing [maybe] Karl's theories on how achieve Communism, which just leads to Socialism. They have no desire to see Communism ever implemented.

[kappy0405]

on the money

I know, right.. Once the West is Communist, I'm moving to Cuba where there are real free markets. :D

[bendoon]

I know, right.. Once the West is Communist, I'm moving to Cuba where there are real free markets. :D

Good move, Cuba will seem like a paradise compared to the US or Europe. :p

[meksar]

Communism And The Federal Reserve

Communism And The Federal Reserve - YouTube

[flyermay]

When you talk about communism you are talking about your idea of communism but unfortunately they are not implementing your idea of communism they are implementing Karls idea of communism.

Marx and Engels' idea of communism is the only communism. These ideals were perverted by people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc; which is actually known as Stalinism or Neo-Stalinism.

Communism has only one invariable set of ideals: a classless, equalitarian, fair and oppression-free society; everything else that deviates from these ideals is a perversion of communism. And I assure you that not one single pro-NWO or elite member want any of these things; they want the system as it is.

You could argue that what they want is not really communism, but Stalinism, which is a tyranical form of socialism. But I can't also agree with that theory, bacause these people want more than anything else a system where money is power (they have the money, they already rule).

This is already the NWO, they already have the money, and they already rule over us; they just want it at a global scale now, not turning it into something else.

And I'm not saying this because I'm biased; I'm neither a communist nor a capitalist.

[shed7628]

.

This is already the NWO.

Agreed

[meksar]

Evilarchy

Evilarchy - YouTube

[meksar]

The Many (illuminati) Faces of Communism

Thanks to the research of persons like Anthony Sutton ("Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution") we now know that the international bankers -- the Illuminati -- financed Communism.

They did so to create a dialectic, a state of opposing forces they could manipulate to advance their own control over the world.

But there's a question that is still unanswered. What is the end game of the Illuminati? Are they Communists? To answer this, let's look at who the Communists are.

THE MARXIST-LENNINISTS

Communists have many faces -- and facades. The Marxist-Leninists are just one kind, and they were bitterly divided between the Stalinists and the Trotskyites.

In America, the Stalinists were represented by leaders such as William Z. Foster, author of "Toward Soviet America." In the '30s and '40s he preached social revolution (e.g., women's liberation, no-fault divorce, abortion), but said this would come after an armed revolution by the working class.

The Trotskyites were revolutionaries too, but they hated Stalin. They thought he had betrayed the revolution by working to secure the Soviet Union. They wanted a "permanent revolution" free from any national compromises. (Think of the difference between Castro and Che Guevara.)

FABIAN SOCIALISTS

In addition to the Marxist-Leninists, there are the Fabian Socialists. Contrary to popular view, they are not just reformers content with a welfare state.

George Bernard Shaw, co-founder of the Fabian Society, wrote that the purpose of the welfare state was to bankrupt society, leading to economic collapse. This in turn would lead to Communism. These days it looks as if Shaw knew what he was talking about.

Today, most "Stalinists" or "Trotskyites" have morphed and adopted new labels.

It's estimated that 20 percent of Congress are "progressives," a code word for neo-Stalinists. They dominate the Democratic part. They occupy the White House.

The Trotskyites on the other hand are now "neoconservatives," and their chosen vehicle is the Republican party.

As for "liberals" (Democrats) and "moderates" (Republicans), they are Fabian socialists. Most of them may not be as cynical as Shaw, but what does it matter? They're on board.

GRAMSCI, ALINSKY, FANON

Antonio Gramsci co-founded the Italian Communist part in the 1920s. His ideas were largely rejected at the time, but today his influence is great. He turned the model that William Z. Foster used on its head.

Instead of working to overthrow the economic "foundation" of society and then change the social and cultural "super-structure," he argued that the cultural level (values, morals, etc.) should be subverted first. The rest would then fall into the Communists' hands "like an overripe fruit."

This view influenced a whole generation of student radicals in the 1960s. Bill Clinton, for example, always maintained close ties to the "Euro-Communist" party in Italy.

Hillary, on the other hand, was a disciple of Saul Alinsky, the community organizer and author of "Rules for Radicals."

He was not a member of the Communist party (the large majority of Communists are not), but he had the same goals: abolition of private property, the total transformation of society, and the total empowerment of the state to carry this out.

Today, of course, the best known disciple of Alinsky is not Hillary but Barack Obama. And no doubt Obama is also influenced by another figure from the '60s: Frantz Fanon.

Author of "The Wretched of the Earth," Fanon was a "French" (from Martinique) radical. Driven by racial hatred, he saw revolutionary violence as cathartic, a means by which the non-white world could not only gain its independence, but redeem its soul from the humiliations it had suffered.

Today there is a working synthesis of all these influences. The old internecine rivalries are muted. Depending on circumstances, and where one is positioned, one can choose an appropriate model or mix them. A "liberal" today, a revolutionary tomorrow. Or vice versa.

WHAT ABOUT THE ILLUMINATI?

The Illuminati -- the Judeo-Masonic international bankers and their minions (e.g. Fearless Fosdyke) -- not only promote Communism, they share its goals.

They believe in the degradation of culture, the abolition of private property, the reduction of the world's peoples to a state of equality (serfdom), and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the state (controlled by themselves).

As such, it is completely legitimate to refer to them as communists. It is just that they are not communists in the sectarian sense. Though they would be quite content to have the communists take over, they are not committed to that. They ride all horses, or almost all.

For example, they support fascism too. After all, Fascism is just a variant of Communism. Mussolini permitted private property to exist, but only under the control of the state. "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

What does it matter if you "own" your property if it can be taken away by eminent domain, or because of property taxes, or cannot be used because of environmental regulations?

Mussolini, like Lenin, was a member of the Second International. Roosevelt's New Deal was modeled on Mussolini's policies. And just as Obama is a racial (anti-white) socialist, so Hitler was a racial (anti-Jewish) socialist.

It doesn't matter who's put into power; they're all puppets (or are meant to be). The Illuminati operate from a higher level. The issue of Fascist or Communist is secondary.

As Wilhelm Reich observed: Politically mankind moves from right to left and left to right, like a man shifting from one foot to another -- but never a step forward!

CONCLUSION

As Fosdyke says, we should not fear. The Illuminati are not as powerful as they'd like us to believe. Their power rests on two pillars: 1) indirect control through a usurious (and "mysterious") financial system, and 2) deception through control of mass propaganda.

These pillars are inherently vulnerable, as were the pillars that Samson was chained to. They and the temple they support can be destroyed by power applied directly and deliberately.

To put it in terms of another Biblical image: "Mystery" Babylon will be destroyed by the beast she rides. And this beast will be destroyed as well. The Illuminati's doom is sure. One little word will fell them.

http://www.henrymakow.com/the_illuminati_and_communism.html

[anarchocommunist666]

No they implement it alright but they are still in charge. They get to be a dictator like Castro or Stalin whilst everyone else is poor.

You obviously have never talked to anyone from Cuba, Fidel is a hero, the one of few leaders along with Chaves and earlier Che, who oppose US and Western in general Imperialism in "banana" part of Americas. And people from Cuba are grateful to him, not only because of his actions Cuba is much much safer place to live than say Mexico or Brazil not to mention States.See More

[vancity eagle]

I know that Communism is a front for the NWO, but I believe its relevance is often overstated, in actuality the NWO is closer to Capitalism. Capitalism is run by banks and on a system of slavery/minimum wage in order to maximize profits for those at the top, while those at the bottom have little chance of moving anywhere. Communism is just putting a different face on monopoly capitalism. A face that pretends to care for those at the bottom. Capitalism existed long before Communism, and we all know the NWO goes way back. Capitalism = Slavery.

[anarchocommunist666]

The Many (illuminati) Faces of Communism

Thanks to the research of persons like Anthony Sutton ("Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution") we now know that the international bankers -- the Illuminati -- financed Communism.

They did so to create a dialectic, a state of opposing forces they could manipulate to advance their own control over the world.

But there's a question that is still unanswered. What is the end game of the Illuminati? Are they Communists? To answer this, let's look at who the Communists are.

THE MARXIST-LENNINISTS

Communists have many faces -- and facades. The Marxist-Leninists are just one kind, and they were bitterly divided between the Stalinists and the Trotskyites.

In America, the Stalinists were represented by leaders such as William Z. Foster, author of "Toward Soviet America." In the '30s and '40s he preached social revolution (e.g., women's liberation, no-fault divorce, abortion), but said this would come after an armed revolution by the working class.

The Trotskyites were revolutionaries too, but they hated Stalin. They thought he had betrayed the revolution by working to secure the Soviet Union. They wanted a "permanent revolution" free from any national compromises. (Think of the difference between Castro and Che Guevara.)

FABIAN SOCIALISTS

In addition to the Marxist-Leninists, there are the Fabian Socialists. Contrary to popular view, they are not just reformers content with a welfare state.

George Bernard Shaw, co-founder of the Fabian Society, wrote that the purpose of the welfare state was to bankrupt society, leading to economic collapse. This in turn would lead to Communism. These days it looks as if Shaw knew what he was talking about.

Today, most "Stalinists" or "Trotskyites" have morphed and adopted new labels.

It's estimated that 20 percent of Congress are "progressives," a code word for neo-Stalinists. They dominate the Democratic part. They occupy the White House.

The Trotskyites on the other hand are now "neoconservatives," and their chosen vehicle is the Republican party.

As for "liberals" (Democrats) and "moderates" (Republicans), they are Fabian socialists. Most of them may not be as cynical as Shaw, but what does it matter? They're on board.

GRAMSCI, ALINSKY, FANON

Antonio Gramsci co-founded the Italian Communist part in the 1920s. His ideas were largely rejected at the time, but today his influence is great. He turned the model that William Z. Foster used on its head.

Instead of working to overthrow the economic "foundation" of society and then change the social and cultural "super-structure," he argued that the cultural level (values, morals, etc.) should be subverted first. The rest would then fall into the Communists' hands "like an overripe fruit."

This view influenced a whole generation of student radicals in the 1960s. Bill Clinton, for example, always maintained close ties to the "Euro-Communist" party in Italy.

Hillary, on the other hand, was a disciple of Saul Alinsky, the community organizer and author of "Rules for Radicals."

He was not a member of the Communist party (the large majority of Communists are not), but he had the same goals: abolition of private property, the total transformation of society, and the total empowerment of the state to carry this out.

Today, of course, the best known disciple of Alinsky is not Hillary but Barack Obama. And no doubt Obama is also influenced by another figure from the '60s: Frantz Fanon.

Author of "The Wretched of the Earth," Fanon was a "French" (from Martinique) radical. Driven by racial hatred, he saw revolutionary violence as cathartic, a means by which the non-white world could not only gain its independence, but redeem its soul from the humiliations it had suffered.

Today there is a working synthesis of all these influences. The old internecine rivalries are muted. Depending on circumstances, and where one is positioned, one can choose an appropriate model or mix them. A "liberal" today, a revolutionary tomorrow. Or vice versa.

WHAT ABOUT THE ILLUMINATI?

The Illuminati -- the Judeo-Masonic international bankers and their minions (e.g. Fearless Fosdyke) -- not only promote Communism, they share its goals.

They believe in the degradation of culture, the abolition of private property, the reduction of the world's peoples to a state of equality (serfdom), and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the state (controlled by themselves).

As such, it is completely legitimate to refer to them as communists. It is just that they are not communists in the sectarian sense. Though they would be quite content to have the communists take over, they are not committed to that. They ride all horses, or almost all.

For example, they support fascism too. After all, Fascism is just a variant of Communism. Mussolini permitted private property to exist, but only under the control of the state. "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

What does it matter if you "own" your property if it can be taken away by eminent domain, or because of property taxes, or cannot be used because of environmental regulations?

Mussolini, like Lenin, was a member of the Second International. Roosevelt's New Deal was modeled on Mussolini's policies. And just as Obama is a racial (anti-white) socialist, so Hitler was a racial (anti-Jewish) socialist.

It doesn't matter who's put into power; they're all puppets (or are meant to be). The Illuminati operate from a higher level. The issue of Fascist or Communist is secondary.

As Wilhelm Reich observed: Politically mankind moves from right to left and left to right, like a man shifting from one foot to another -- but never a step forward!

CONCLUSION

As Fosdyke says, we should not fear. The Illuminati are not as powerful as they'd like us to believe. Their power rests on two pillars: 1) indirect control through a usurious (and "mysterious") financial system, and 2) deception through control of mass propaganda.

These pillars are inherently vulnerable, as were the pillars that Samson was chained to. They and the temple they support can be destroyed by power applied directly and deliberately.

To put it in terms of another Biblical image: "Mystery" Babylon will be destroyed by the beast she rides. And this beast will be destroyed as well. The Illuminati's doom is sure. One little word will fell them.

http://www.henrymakow.com/the_illuminati_and_communism.html

WE GET IT....Your a nutjob who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about,

[meksar]

WE GET IT....Your a nutjob who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about,


And you do, Communism has taken more life's than any other political idealogy in recent history and you advocate it?.

[wthree]

And you do, Communism has taken more life's than any other political idealogy in recent history and you advocate it?.

First of all, no it hasnt. Capitalism has.

Secondly, the reason millions died in china and russia had nothing to do with communism. It was down to dictatorship, and the madness of the leaders.

[edelweiss]

No doubt about it: the elite is following Marx plan for a NWO step by step. :rolleyes:

Coincidence or revolution against interest slavery?

Egypt and Tunesia expelled lately

Following the January 2011 uprising in Tunisia, the Constitutional Democratic Rally was expelled from the SI on 17 January 2011.

Later that month, on 31 January 2011, the Egyptian National Democratic Party was also expelled.

However, according to section 5.1.3 of the statutes of the Socialist International, an expulsion requires a decision of Congress by a majority of two-thirds.

Socialist International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
International Workingmen's Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[meksar]

First of all, no it hasnt. Capitalism has.

Secondly, the reason millions died in china and russia had nothing to do with communism. It was down to dictatorship, and the madness of the leaders.

Well China and Russia were both Communist dictatorship's and Mao took orders from the Rockefeller's, the Communist revolution in Russia was a hoax sold to the people once the Romanav royal dynasty were overthrown and killed. Like i say Communism tells you are all equal when it is clearly not true and anyone who disagree's with it is taken to gulags or the firing line's. Communism and Captialism are two side's of the same coin in my book, you know these whacko commie's who want to share after they work for the same people who raped these nations for everything they were worth and then dig into your pockets to pretend like they give a shit.

Like that cocksucker Ed "The Red" Miliband (Who it is hinted is a pedophile) sang with his Neo Marxist Nu Labour posse "We'll keep the Red flag flying here", i would rather have a hamburger then a hammer and a sickle and i aint no Captialist either. I am Relaist no Communist, Fascist or the rest of "Ist's".

[tinyint]

...Communism and Captialism are two side's of the same coin in my book...


In my book as well.

The current cultural marxists are definitely the most cunning and hypocrite branch, the communists of GDR were kind, honest folks in comparison.

[pound]

Words of wisdom:

"The invisible Money Power is working to control and enslave mankind. It financed Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Zionism, Socialism. All of these are directed to making the United States a member of a World Government ..."

-- AMERICAN MERCURY MAGAZINE, December 1957, pg. 92.

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."

--Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/quotes/index.htm

[flyermay]

I know that Communism is a front for the NWO, but I believe its relevance is often overstated, in actuality the NWO is closer to Capitalism. Capitalism is run by banks and on a system of slavery/minimum wage in order to maximize profits for those at the top, while those at the bottom have little chance of moving anywhere. Communism is just putting a different face on monopoly capitalism. A face that pretends to care for those at the bottom. Capitalism existed long before Communism, and we all know the NWO goes way back. Capitalism = Slavery.

Yes, the NWO is run by the international bankers, and it's not only closer to capitalism; the NWO is actually world rigged capitalism.

The only reason why they haven't succeeded already is because of communism. The funding of the Bolsheviks turned out to be a complete mistake; since Lenin and Stalin took the power out of the hands of the banker's man (Trotsky), and had been holding their agenda back for nearly 100 years. Then China took the place of the USSR -with also some resistance from S.America and Africa-, and Islam is now also in their way (reason why they are currently being targetted).

Coincidence or revolution against interest slavery?

Egypt and Tunesia expelled lately

Following the January 2011 uprising in Tunisia, the Constitutional Democratic Rally was expelled from the SI on 17 January 2011.

Later that month, on 31 January 2011, the Egyptian National Democratic Party was also expelled.

However, according to section 5.1.3 of the statutes of the Socialist International, an expulsion requires a decision of Congress by a majority of two-thirds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_International
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen%27s_Association

I'm not sure I follow you; though I think you are up to something really interesting. Could you explain it a bit further please?

Well China and Russia were both Communist dictatorship's and Mao took orders from the Rockefeller's,

Where did you get that idea from? How is Rockefeller connected to Mao?

the Communist revolution in Russia was a hoax sold to the people once the Romanav royal dynasty were overthrown and killed.

Again, where did you get this story from; any trustworthy sources?

Like i say Communism tells you are all equal when it is clearly not true and anyone who disagree's with it is taken to gulags or the firing line's. Communism and Captialism are two side's of the same coin in my book, you know these whacko commie's who want to share after they work for the same people who raped these nations for everything they were worth and then dig into your pockets to pretend like they give a shit.

There are false people, murderers and pshychopaths everywhere -also among communists and capitalists-, doesn't mean that communism stands for what you just described; no more than christianity stands for what the inquisition did.

[tinyint]

Yes, the NWO is run by the international bankers, and it's not only closer to capitalism; the NWO is actually world rigged capitalism.



I could easily name it transnational communism. C'mon, same shit, different name.
Communism is not salvation, its a deceptive plague as long as money exists.
We know who prints the money.

[flyermay]

I could easily name it transnational communism. C'mon, same shit, different name.
Communism is not salvation, its a deceptive plague as long as money exists.
We know who prints the money.

I really can't see what rigged capitalism has in common with communism.

There is this list of the 10 planks of communism circulating around the internet, which attempts to find a match between capitalism in the US and communism. But when you compare that list with what Marx explained in the communist manifesto you realise that those who made the list were just taking the piss.

[anarchocommunist666]

Well China and Russia were both Communist dictatorship's and Mao took orders from the Rockefeller's, the Communist revolution in Russia was a hoax sold to the people once the Romanav royal dynasty were overthrown and killed. Like i say Communism tells you are all equal when it is clearly not true and anyone who disagree's with it is taken to gulags or the firing line's. Communism and Captialism are two side's of the same coin in my book, you know these whacko commie's who want to share after they work for the same people who raped these nations for everything they were worth and then dig into your pockets to pretend like they give a shit.

Like that cocksucker Ed "The Red" Miliband (Who it is hinted is a pedophile) sang with his Neo Marxist Nu Labour posse "We'll keep the Red flag flying here", i would rather have a hamburger then a hammer and a sickle and i aint no Captialist either. I am Relaist no Communist, Fascist or the rest of "Ist's".

Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung are two of the most LIED about people in history. If you go to russia today and ask any senior citizen they will tell you, Stalins a hero, same thing with Mao, Hoxa, Ho Chi Minh. I'm not even a Marxist-Leninist so no, I am not Biased

[meksar]

Yes, the NWO is run by the international bankers, and it's not only closer to capitalism; the NWO is actually world rigged capitalism.

The only reason why they haven't succeeded already is because of communism. The funding of the Bolsheviks turned out to be a complete mistake; since Lenin and Stalin took the power out of the hands of the banker's man (Trotsky), and had been holding their agenda back for nearly 100 years. Then China took the place of the USSR -with also some resistance from S.America and Africa-, and Islam is now also in their way (reason why they are currently being targetted).



I'm not sure I follow you; though I think you are up to something really interesting. Could you explain it a bit further please?



Where did you get that idea from? How is Rockefeller connected to Mao?



Again, where did you get this story from; any trustworthy sources?



There are false people, murderers and pshychopaths everywhere -also among communists and capitalists-, doesn't mean that communism stands for what you just described; no more than christianity stands for what the inquisition did.

I cannot be bothered to answer the rest of the nonsense but the qoute i will uphold speaks for itself.

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."

---David Rockefeller, statement about Mao Tse-tung in The New York Times, August 10, 1973

David Rockefeller: Unashamed Predatory Globalist

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=18188

[meksar]

Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung are two of the most LIED about people in history. If you go to russia today and ask any senior citizen they will tell you, Stalins a hero, same thing with Mao, Hoxa, Ho Chi Minh. I'm not even a Marxist-Leninist so no, I am not Biased

Stalin and Mao hero's?, you must live on planet cuckoo or something one killed 20 million or more and the other up to 80 million, most people in Russia that say these things must be drinking moonshine which is said to make people blind.

[meksar]

Yes, the NWO is run by the international bankers, and it's not only closer to capitalism; the NWO is actually world rigged capitalism.

The only reason why they haven't succeeded already is because of communism. The funding of the Bolsheviks turned out to be a complete mistake; since Lenin and Stalin took the power out of the hands of the banker's man (Trotsky), and had been holding their agenda back for nearly 100 years. Then China took the place of the USSR -with also some resistance from S.America and Africa-, and Islam is now also in their way (reason why they are currently being targetted).



I'm not sure I follow you; though I think you are up to something really interesting. Could you explain it a bit further please?



Where did you get that idea from? How is Rockefeller connected to Mao?



Again, where did you get this story from; any trustworthy sources?



There are false people, murderers and pshychopaths everywhere -also among communists and capitalists-, doesn't mean that communism stands for what you just described; no more than christianity stands for what the inquisition did.

NWO Crowned killers @ 8:07

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[pound]

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."

---David Rockefeller, statement about Mao Tse-tung in The New York Times, August 10, 1973



+1...That pretty much say's it all. These people get off on hardcore death and destruction.

[tinyint]

I really can't see what rigged capitalism has in common with communism.


I asked you once, I ask you again:

Show me any passage in Marx's "Das Kapital" where he explicitly stated that Communism wants to get rid of Money.
Who financed the Bolshevists? Am I really talking to the same Flyermay who started the thread on the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy?




There is this list of the 10 planks of communism circulating around the internet, which attempts to find a match between capitalism in the US and communism. But when you compare that list with what Marx explained in the communist manifesto you realise that those who made the list were just taking the piss.



Wall Street and City of London, that are the evil fuckers who run both shows.
I could say, the former Communist states were state run Capitalism with Central Bank and a Central Comittee. Its also valid in my view to call the EU communist, since its structure is frighteningly similar to that of the Soviet Union.

I won't get into the German "reunification" scam here, when the communists on both sides joined forces. The FRG Ltd evolved out of a former GDR financial business.

Look who runs the Ltd, what her background was.... I guess you know that. The biggest supporter of Zionism in Europe is her.

[flyermay]

I cannot be bothered to answer the rest of the nonsense but the qoute i will uphold speaks for itself.

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."

---David Rockefeller, statement about Mao Tse-tung in The New York Times, August 10, 1973

David Rockefeller: Unashamed Predatory Globalist

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=18188

I tried to find that quote in any reputable source, like in the new york times itself, for example, but the only places I could find it is in conspiracy sites, blogs and forums.

But that doesn't prove either that Rockefeller did not praise Mao; so let's assume he did. How does Rockefeller praising Mao means in any way that Mao took any orders from Rockefeller? Furthermore, how does that quote prove that they even knew each other, or where ever in contact?

[flyermay]

I asked you once, I ask you again:

Show me any passage in Marx's "Das Kapital" where he explicitly stated that Communism wants to get rid of Money.
Who financed the Bolshevists? Am I really talking to the same Flyermay who started the thread on the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy?

:D Yes, I think it still me...

The bankers did finance the Bolsheviks; they gave Trotsky millions, which were used to take down the Tsar. But Trotsky did not hold any power in post-revolutionary Russia; at the contrary, he even had to leave the country (married one of the bankers' daughters) and was later assassinated by order of Stalin. So Russia did not end in the hands of the bankers.

The Judeo-Masonic conspiracy is in essence about how the bankers overthrew the monarchy to gain control over the world; that's what they also did in Russia, but not because they supported communism, because they thought that, as everywhere else, without the Tsars Russia would be in their hands. They were wrong; this was a different kind of revolution, one that held the bankers also as enemies. They tried it before with the Japanese, just 10 years earlier; they sent them millions to fund their war against the Tsar of Russia. Does that also mean that the bankers were loyal to the Emperor of Japan?... No; it was just about money and power, not about ideology; they don't care what ideology is put in place, as long as it benefits them.

About "Das Kapital", I never read it. But, I don't see the point you are trying to make either; are you saying that all ideologies that have a monetary system are comparable to each other?

Wall Street and City of London, that are the evil fuckers who run both shows.
I could say, the former Communist states were state run Capitalism with Central Bank and a Central Comittee. Its also valid in my view to call the EU communist, since its structure is frighteningly similar to that of the Soviet Union.

I won't get into the German "reunification" scam here, when the communists on both sides joined forces. The FRG Ltd evolved out of a former GDR financial business.

Look who runs the Ltd, what her background was.... I guess you know that. The biggest supporter of Zionism in Europe is her.

It is entire normal that you find some similarities between the USSR and some European countries; there's a simple reason for it: the USSR never passed from socialism, which is exactly what many European major parties affirm to be. But that doesn't make rigged capitalism the same thing as communism.

[flyermay]

NWO Crowned killers @ 8:07

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhHlw0Vm2Ok&playnext=1&list=PLA82CD6AD5801C847

Yes, Chris Everard's documentaries are pretty good; and quite convincing. I have to admit they greatly influenced my research at the beginning. However, the problem with his documentaries, as I found pretty early, is that they are as good as inaccurate.

Saying something, even if Chris Everard says it, doesn't make it true. None of his claims are backed up by any kind of evidences. Take the part you referred to on that video:

"The dictatorial cruel system of the Romanov monarchy would be continued by a fake revolutionary communist government who secretly took their orders from the royal political elite.

Descendents of the Russian monarchy and aristocracy now ruled Russia from behind the scenes, having introduced the same system of globalisation and stock markets, which the royal elite have used to snare the economies of most countries on the face of planet earth."

What the hell has this to do with what really happened; it doesn't even fit the obvious reality of the situation:

Which descendents of the Russian monarchy ruled Russia; FFS they were all executed by the Bolsheviks.
Introduction of Globalisation and stock markets by the communists??? Are you kidding me? Russia didn't even have a stock market until 1995; by the time when communism was over.
And what secret orders from the royal political elite; have any of you the slightest evidence of this?

People please, if you chose to believe something or someone; at least make sure you do it because it fits reality, and not because its says what you like to hear.

[tinyint]

It is entire normal that you find some similarities between the USSR and some European countries; there's a simple reason for it: the USSR never passed from socialism, which is exactly what many European major parties affirm to be. But that doesn't make rigged capitalism the same thing as communism.

We have to agree to disagree here.

We may have had very different life experiences.
I know both systems, its all the same evil oppressive shit, run by the fucking banking cabal. Both systems (will) have to go, both are godless evil materialist ideologies.

[flyermay]

We have to agree to disagree here.

We may have had very different life experiences.
I know both systems, its all the same evil oppressive shit, run by the fucking banking cabal. Both systems (will) have to go, both are godless evil materialist ideologies.

And I agree with you on that; I just don't see any evidences pointing towards the bankers controlling the USSR.

Take this other example closer to you: the Kaisser also funded and help Lenin start the revolution; do you also believe he was a communist and secretly controlled the USSR?... Well, it's the same case as with the bankers; they did it for motives that had nothing to do with communism.

[tinyint]

And I agree with you on that; I just don't see any evidences pointing towards the bankers controlling the USSR.

Take this other example closer to you: the Kaisser also funded and help Lenin start the revolution; do you also believe he was a communist and secretly controlled the USSR?... Well, it's the same case as with the bankers; they did it for motives that had nothing to do with communism.

Uhm, well, Wilhelm's big mistake was to grant free passage through Germany.
However, we have to consider the royal relationship to the English Queen. Iirc, Wilhelm was the favourite nephew of Queen Victoria.
Lets get it straight, Wilhelm was a moron.

I simply don't see any relief in Communism. As I said, its godless and purely evil, and doesn't know any spirituality which has no place in that devilish doctrine.

I compare it to the western brainwash of "democracy", which is not equal to human right and a Republic. Yet we are told "democracy" is a good thing, while in fact its only a big deception. The illusion of having a say by giving away responsibility in good faith some corrupt moron will act in their interests. They won't.

Democracy is the rule of the mob(Demos=mob). We have been actually ruled by the mob since almost 70 years, All began with the plan to eliminate the European Royalties. The Czars had been brutally murdered by the Red Hordes, financed by Wall Street. That was Phase 1.

That is also the reason we don't have a peace treaty, since the still valid constitution of 1871 does not know political parties, a tool of deception and oppression. A different form of dictatorship.

[wthree]

Well China and Russia were both Communist dictatorship's and Mao took orders from the Rockefeller's, the Communist revolution in Russia was a hoax sold to the people once the Romanav royal dynasty were overthrown and killed. Like i say Communism tells you are all equal when it is clearly not true and anyone who disagree's with it is taken to gulags or the firing line's. Communism and Captialism are two side's of the same coin in my book, you know these whacko commie's who want to share after they work for the same people who raped these nations for everything they were worth and then dig into your pockets to pretend like they give a shit.

That doesnt really have anything to do with communism as an ideology. Again, the deaths in russia and china where to do with the dictatorial powers and paranoia of the leaders. It doesnt matter what economic system you have, a dictatorship still leaves power in the hands of a single person.

In a capitalist democracy, the power then goes into the hands of private interests.

[tinyint]

In a capitalist democracy, the power then goes into the hands of private interests.

In the ex-communist countries the very same principle applied. The power was in the hands of a few and also of private interests.

[flyermay]

Uhm, well, Wilhelm's big mistake was to grant free passage through Germany.
However, we have to consider the royal relationship to the English Queen. Iirc, Wilhelm was the favourite nephew of Queen Victoria.
Lets get it straight, Wilhelm was a moron.

:D

He might had been a moron; but he did the right thing by helping Lenin. I'm not saying it becuase he helped communism, but because that decission, rather than being a big mistake, was a perfect plan to take Russia out of WWI and with it free Germany from the pressure of the Eastern front. Thanks to that plan none of his enemies ever put a foot inside German borders; even though Germany ended up losig the war.

I simply don't see any relief in Communism. As I said, its godless and purely evil, and doesn't know any spirituality which has no place in that devilish doctrine.

I compare it to the western brainwash of "democracy", which is not equal to human right and a Republic. Yet we are told "democracy" is a good thing, while in fact its only a big deception. The illusion of having a say by giving away responsibility in good faith some corrupt moron will act in their interests. They won't.

Democracy is the rule of the mob(Demos=mob). We have been actually ruled by the mob since almost 70 years, All began with the plan to eliminate the European Royalties. The Czars had been brutally murdered by the Red Hordes, financed by Wall Street. That was Phase 1.

That is also the reason we don't have a peace treaty, since the still valid constitution of 1871 does not know political parties, a tool of deception and oppression. A different form of dictatorship.

Yes, but that's a complete different matter. The fact that you don't like a political system or an ideology doesn't mean they are all the same thing. What you are saying is: if I don't like something, then it must be communism, because I don't like communism.

In the ex-communist countries the very same principle applied. The power was in the hands of a few and also of private interests.

Which private interests?

[tinyint]

:D

He might had been a moron; but he did the right thing by helping Lenin. I'm not saying it becuase he helped communism, but because that decission, rather than being a big mistake, was a perfect plan to take Russia out of WWI and with it free Germany from the pressure of the Eastern front. Thanks to that plan none of his enemies ever put a foot inside German borders; even though Germany ended up losig the war.


Hmm, he better didn't help the bankster criminal puppet Lenin.


Yes, but that's a complete different matter. The fact that you don't like a political system or an ideology doesn't mean they are all the same thing. What you are saying is: if I don't like something, then it must be communism, because I don't like communism.


No, its not a different matter. You see, it is not a matter of competing economic systems, but that of how power is organized and structured.

As far as I remember, the west did recognize all the communist countries as democratic.
I see democracy as the biggest and most dangerous deception in history.
We formally also had "elections". Where is the difference to the rigged western system? There is none, the west is just more covert and cunning.



Which private interests?

Do you have an idea, how eg Honecker or Ulbricht lived? They lived like kings in a economy of shortages. But, not comparable to the luxury of the western democracy freaks, no doubt, however still privileged.
Did you know the GDR cheaply produced all sort of goods for the FRG? Do you know how they, behind the scenes, worked together? Eg Franz J. Strauß and Alexander Schalck-Golodkowski. Enormous criminal network it was and still is.

What I want to say, the isms are distraction for the masses, the real deception is democracy both systems claimed. Both systems have a central bank, and both systems are controlled and thought out by the banksters.
The problem are political parties.

[meksar]

That doesnt really have anything to do with communism as an ideology. Again, the deaths in russia and china where to do with the dictatorial powers and paranoia of the leaders. It doesnt matter what economic system you have, a dictatorship still leaves power in the hands of a single person.

In a capitalist democracy, the power then goes into the hands of private interests.

Down like the economy @ 0:28

Down - Lil Wayne Verse and Lyrics - YouTube

[flyermay]

Hmm, he better didn't help the bankster criminal puppet Lenin.

We are going in circles, but you are still not showing any evidences connecting the bankers to the USSR; of course, Trotsky doesn't count as a valid link, since Trotsky never had any power (he was not even wellcome in Russia).

How can you believe that the bankers controlled the USSR, or Lenin, when you can't find any evidence linking them.

No ofense, but I'm starting to think you also believe it becuase that's what you want to believe?

[tinyint]

We are going in circles, but you are still not showing any evidences connecting the bankers to the USSR; of course, Trotsky doesn't count as a valid link, since Trotsky never had any power (he was not even wellcome in Russia).

How can you believe that the bankers controlled the USSR, or Lenin, when you can't find any evidence linking them.

No ofense, but I'm starting to think you also believe it becuase that's what you want to believe?

Well, the evidence is even on your Judeo-Masonic conspiracy thread.

Are you really Flyermay? :D

I share evenly much love for all the isms, but most love for democracy.

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=BolshevikRev

Btw, first link on a google search.

I simply cannot believe how romantic some folks look at this evil doctrine.
You probably would have to experience it yourself to understand.

[flyermay]

Well, the evidence is even on your Judeo-Masonic conspiracy thread.

Are you really Flyermay? :D

I share evenly much love for all the isms, but most love for democracy.

Where? in which chapter did I say the bankers controlled the USSR.

What I said is that they financed the revolution through Trotsky, and that they bankrolled the first 5 years. but I've already explained dozens of times why they did that, and what happened at the end.

The bankers never made any direct profit from their investment in Russia (without counting the Romanov's fortune), they never gained control over its resouces while the communists were in power, they never profited or controlled any communist central bank, and Trotsky never set foot again in the USSR.

http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=BolshevikRev

Btw, first link on a google search.

Sutton says the same thing; they financed the Bolsheviks and bankrolled the first 5 years of the reconstruction; that's all, there's no control over Russia.

You don't believe me? listen to Sutton saying it himself, and listen to him explaining that they did it because they feared the USSR being a competitor for their business in America:

Best Enemies Money Can Buy interview with Antony Sutton 3/4 - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5rK6dw3IFA

I simply cannot believe how romantic some folks look at this evil doctrine.
You probably would have to experience it yourself to understand.

Why is setting the record straight looking at communism with romanticism?

I'm willing to change my mind; if you are willing to prove me wrong.

[tinyint]

Where? in which chapter did I say the bankers controlled the USSR.

What I said is that they financed the revolution through Trotsky, and that they bankrolled the reconstruction of Russia after the revolution. but I've already explained dozens of times why they did that, and what happened at the end.

The bankers never made any direct profit from their investment in Russia (without counting the Romanov's fortune), they never gained control over its resouces while the communists were in power, they never profited or controlled any communist central bank, and Trotsky never set foot again in the USSR.



Sutton says the same thing; they financed the Bolsheviks and bankrolled the first 5 years of the reconstruction; that all, there's no control over Russia.

You don't believe me? listen to Sutton saying it himself, and listen to him explaining that they did it because they feared the USSR being a competitor for their business in America:

http://www.youtube.com/v/TH1vdUGDnvg
http://www.youtube.com/v/TH1vdUGDnvg



Why is setting the record straight looking at communism with romanticism?

I'm willing to change my mind; if you are willing to prove me wrong.

No, I am not willing to go on further. We had that discussion on yet another thread.
As long as money exists, communism is evil, only produces evil and cannot work.

Show me the passage where the communist theory states explicitly the aim to get rid of money. Its simply not intended by communism.
There you have the answer.
Who printed the money in USSR? Who owned the central bank?

Money is a tool of control and a tool to power by a very few.


Btw, do you think it was pure coincidence that the communist officially failed just because people rose up? It was decided in the US, with Gorbatschow being a bankster agent.

[flyermay]

No, I am not willing to go on further. We had that discussion on yet another thread.
As long as money exists, communism is evil, only produces evil and cannot work.

Show me the passage where the communist theory states explicitly the aim to get rid of money. Its simply not intended by communism.
There you have the answer.
Who printed the money in USSR? Who owned the central bank?

Money is a tool of control and a tool to power by a very few.


Btw, do you think it was pure coincidence that the communist officially failed just because people rose up? It was decided in the US, with Gorbatschow being a bankster agent.

But we are not discussing whether communism is good or bad; we are discussing whether the elite are communists or not, and whether capitalism is the same as communism.

[tinyint]

But we are not discussing whether communism is good or bad; we are discussing whether the elite are communists or not, and whether capitalism is the same as communism.

Yes, I gave you my opinion.

The EU is communist not only in structure but also by their freaking bureaucrats.

Rockefeller is definitely a communist in my view.

And yes, capitalism and communism are 2 sides of the same coin, called oppression so that only a few profit.

The formula is very simple, communism for all the rest but not for the money changers and lenders.
Look what happened with the bail outs. It strikes me, it is in fact communism adapted to current times.

[meksar]

But we are not discussing whether communism is good or bad; we are discussing whether the elite are communists or not, and whether capitalism is the same as communism.

Well it is like saying are the elite homosexual, child abusers are mass deceivers which has been proven beyond a doubt. They use all kinds political, economic and social intrigue to sell their one world govenment and the rest of the shit to go with it.

[tinyint]

Flyermay, I find it a logical flaw to think Wall Street/London would finance the Bolshevists only to leave them alone after successful murder, rape and violent turmoil.

Don't you think that this is a bit naive to assume?

[flyermay]

Flyermay, I find it a logical flaw to think Wall Street/London would finance the Bolshevists only to leave them alone after successful murder, rape and violent turmoil.

Don't you think that this is a bit naive to assume?

Yet that's exactly what they did with the Nazis too; why do you find it ilogical with the communists and not with the Nazis?

What you have to understand is that controlling the USSR did not depend on the bankers (they would had loved to), it depended on the communists; and they didn't want to know anything from the bankers.

Here's some communist propaganda of the time... see how Lenin sweeps the world clean of monarchs AND bankers. :)

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/files/2006/07/lenin-clean.jpg

[flyermay]

Well it is like saying are the elite homosexual, child abusers are mass deceivers which has been proven beyond a doubt. They use all kinds political, economic and social intrigue to sell their one world govenment and the rest of the shit to go with it.

Yes, that I can agree with: they will use whatever is necessary for their goals (even communism). But that's not what we are discussing here; we are discussin if the bankers/elite/NWO are/want communism. And what I'm saying is: they are neither communists, nor want communism. The NWO will not be communist, it will be what it is: rigged capitalism.

[tinyint]

Yet that's exactly what they did with the Nazis too; why do you find it ilogical with the communists and not with the Nazis?

What you have to understand is that controlling the USSR did not depend on the bankers (they would had loved to), it depended on the communists; and they didn't want to know anything from the bankers.

Here's some communist propaganda of the time... see how Lenin sweeps the world clean of monarchs AND bankers. :)

http://www.thestranger.com/blog/files/2006/07/lenin-clean.jpg

Simply because there was a faction in Germany who called the bluff. Same folks escaped with very advanced technology. I wouldn't call them nazis, but the spiritual inheritors of the Templars.

Nazi topic is much more complex than the communist one.

[one666]

Most people think Communism is an ideology dedicated to public ownership and championing workers and the poor. This was a simple but incredibly successful ruse which duped hundreds of millions. The ideology appealed to people who want something for nothing- rather a large segment.

http://www.henrymakow.com/what_is_communism.html

Glad you're finally awake mate

[flyermay]

Simply because there was a faction in Germany who called the bluff. Same folks escaped with very advanced technology. I wouldn't call them nazis, but the spiritual inheritors of the Templars.

Nazi topic is much more complex than the communist one.

No, I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about the bankers (both Wall Street and London City) financing Hitler directly through his finance minister Hjalmar Schacht.

[tinyint]

No, I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about the bankers (both Wall Street and London City) financing Hitler directly through his finance minister Hjalmar Schacht.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=156927&highlight=hitler+debt+slavery

[flyermay]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=156927&highlight=hitler+debt+slavery

Yes, that's what I was referring to. The bankers financed Hitler, the reconstruction of Germany, they armed the Third Reich, and the continued pumping money way after they began to invade neighbouring countries. Do you also believe the bankers controlled the Third Reich; as you do with the Bolsheviks?

[tinyint]

Yes, that's what I was referring to. The bankers financed Hitler, the reconstruction of Germany, they armed the Third Reich, and the continued pumping money way after they began to invade neighbouring countries. Do you also believe the bankers controlled the Third Reich; as you do with the Bolsheviks?

I am sorry, did you read that link?

Its not what the article says. You may want to read it again.


An interesting perspective on World War II, and the players involved.

Many people take joy in saying Wall Street and Jewish bankers “financed Hitler.” There is plenty of documented evidence that Wall Street and Jewish bankers did indeed help finance Hitler at first, partly because it allowed the bankers to get rich (as I will describe below) and partly in order to control Stalin. However, when Germany broke free from the bankers, the bankers declared a world war against Germany.

When we look at all the facts, the charge that “Jews financed Hitler” becomes irrelevant. Los Angeles Attorney Ellen Brown discusses this topic in her book Web of Debt…

When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nation’s costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany. Private currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private banks. Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.

Nothing like this had ever happened before – the total destruction of the national currency, plus the wiping out of people’s savings and businesses. On top of this came a global depression. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power.

At that point the German government thwarted the international banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany. Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.
<...>



I don't like what you somehow try to imply to save the face of the Bolshevists. It won't work, not with me. I know these kind of questions and rhetoric.
You are getting me slowly angry.

Are you really Flyermay?

[flyermay]

I am sorry, did you read that link?

Its not what the article says. You may want to read it again.

Are you really Flyermay?

Yes, I read it; it's the same story I posted months ago in the judeo-masonic thread, but with a pro-Nazi twist.

I'm working on another chapter about it; explaining it all from an unbiased perspective (as I always do).

[tinyint]

So when did the freaking communists turn ever on the Banksters?

Besides a propaganda poster, you can't prove it, because they did never do it.

And yes, they swept away the Czar(better bestially murdered the Romanov family), but replaced him with Cheka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, barbarism and un-culture, the Russians suffered from so much.

This is not about any pro-twist of something, its about facts. I get the impression you try to whitewash the enormously evil Bolshevists, Germany fought exactly because of this.

[truepositive]

Its mostly spiritual, in a perverted sense of the word.

[meksar]

Well once again these type of people only see Captialism as the problem (which i do also) but these ultra leftist types are basically promoting dangerous crap like the environmentalism agenda and most of these movements are being funded by the same people who control Captialism. Flying the red falg should be seen as a major disrespect to the 20 million + people who died in Russia in World War 2, but most people only talk about Nazi's who were National Socialist's anyway and their crimes have been made to look worse then they were, crazy world.

Proud Flag-Waving Communists and Socialists March in Copenhagen to Stop Global Warming

Proud Flag-Waving Communists and Socialists March in Copenhagen to Stop Global Warming - YouTube

Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda

Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda - YouTube

THE LIGHTBRINGERS The Emissaries of Jahbulon @ 7:45

THE LIGHTBRINGERS The Emissaries of Jahbulon 1/5 - YouTube

[anarchocommunist666]

Stalin and Mao hero's?, you must live on planet cuckoo or something one killed 20 million or more and the other up to 80 million, most people in Russia that say these things must be drinking moonshine which is said to make people blind.

Read a book called "Another view of Stalin"

and as for Mao

Raymond Lotta-Everything You&#39;ve Been Told About Communism is Wrong - YouTube

[awarenow]

No doubt about it: the elite is following Marx plan for a NWO step by step. :rolleyes:

Yes, in my understanding the NWO is communism/fascism whatever label wou want to use.

I think the label or word we use can be misleading. People have lets of ideas if they hear one particular word eg communism.

All these tyrannies were about centralizing power, propaganda...fear based centralized leaderships.

Different symbolism and different military outfit:P

It is the content behind the words that matters not so much of the word itself.

[knightofthegrail]

Yes, in my understanding the NWO is communism/fascism whatever label wou want to use.

:confused:

Communism and fascism are not the same thing. Communism is a situation where there is no State but instead there is only ideologically-free (as in they have no ideology) individuals, acting towards each other in a mutually beneficial manner. Its essentially the end-game of Liberalism.

Fascism is Nationalist Socialism, and Nationalism has an ideology (which communism deems a bad thing) whilst Socialism has an all-controlling State (compared to Communism having no State at all).

What we saw in Russia/China etc, is not Communism, but rather Socialism.

All these tyrannies were about centralizing power, propaganda...fear based centralized leaderships.

Be careful not to fall into the centralised power, bad, non-centralised power, good, trap. Socialism is essentially Neo-monarchism; thats why socialist States have absolute power resting in the leader (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceauchesku, Castro, etc), the State controls everything and its all bound up in a strong National identity. But not everything that is "not Socialism" is healthy.

A big mistake in the beliefs held by many a "truther" and "alternative" person, is that of the free individual...but that is PRECISELY where Globalist Free-trade wants you to go. They are counting on you believing that the NWO will be like the Socialist/Monarchist OWO...with the encouraged response being "but we're all individuals!!!"...which instantly atomises people in precisely the way the NWO want. :rolleyes: They would love for you to believe that the world is a choice between Socialism/Monarchism/Central-control on one side, and Individualism/Liberalism on the other. :(

[awarenow]

:confused:

Communism and fascism are not the same thing. Communism is a situation where there is no State but instead there is only ideologically-free (as in they have no ideology) individuals, acting towards each other in a mutually beneficial manner. Its essentially the end-game of Liberalism.

Fascism is Nationalist Socialism, and Nationalism has an ideology (which communism deems a bad thing) whilst Socialism has an all-controlling State (compared to Communism having no State at all).

What we saw in Russia/China etc, is not Communism, but rather Socialism.



Be careful not to fall into the centralised power, bad, non-centralised power, good, trap. Socialism is essentially Neo-monarchism; thats why socialist States have absolute power resting in the leader (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceauchesku, Castro, etc), the State controls everything and its all bound up in a strong National identity. But not everything that is "not Socialism" is healthy.

A big mistake in the beliefs held by many a "truther" and "alternative" person, is that of the free individual...but that is PRECISELY where Globalist Free-trade wants you to go. They are counting on you believing that the NWO will be like the Socialist/Monarchist OWO...with the encouraged response being "but we're all individuals!!!"...which instantly atomises people in precisely the way the NWO want. :rolleyes: They would love for you to believe that the world is a choice between Socialism/Monarchism/Central-control on one side, and Individualism/Liberalism on the other. :(

I do not get into so much detail.. :D
OF course there are differences. They are not identical.

I would not count on any of the regimes for my benefit.They were both evil, that is why they are the same for me:D

[knightofthegrail]

I do not get into so much detail.. :D
OF course there are differences. They are not identical.

Ah, when you said "the NWO is communism/fascism whatever label wou want to use" I thought you were saying that they are identicle... ;)

I would not count on any of the regimes for my benefit.They were both evil, that is why they are the same for me:D

They are both unhealthy, but they'll get you in a different way. :D

[flyermay]

Yes, I noticed that when people and say "the NWO is communist/fascist" what they really mean is "it's something bad"; and not that the NWO has anything to do with communism or fascism.

[meksar]

Read a book called "Another view of Stalin"

and as for Mao

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms99-3Nj81I

That guy sounded like a typical advocate of Communism and there are plenty of quotes from Mao which prove that it is backed and created by the same elite who are involved in Captialism like the Rockefeller's.

[flyermay]

That guy sounded like a typical advocate of Communism and there are plenty of quotes from Mao which prove that it is backed and created by the same elite who are involved in Captialism like the Rockefeller's.

I would love to see those quotes. :)

[meksar]

I cannot be bothered to answer the rest of the nonsense but the qoute i will uphold speaks for itself.

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."

---David Rockefeller, statement about Mao Tse-tung in The New York Times, August 10, 1973

David Rockefeller: Unashamed Predatory Globalist

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=18188

Quoted to show @ Flyermay, Mr Rockefeller aint afraid of telling the people what he and his stooges are up to and it makes perfect sense when you look at certain Secret Government organization's which have sprung up on purpose which is no coincidence.

[drooh]

Not communism.

Communitarianism.

Different thing. Look up the 'third way' and 'big society.'

Anyway, communism means NO state. Therefore it technically has never existed since there's some authority guiding it.

That's more authoritarian/totalitarian socialism to me than communism.

In the UK we seem to be transitioning into a form of democratic socialism with a fascistic heart. The BIG SOCIETY.

[dusthead]

Not communism.

Communitarianism.

Different thing. Look up the 'third way' and 'big society.'

Anyway, communism means NO state. Therefore it technically has never existed since there's some authority guiding it.

That's more authoritarian/totalitarian socialism to me than communism.

In the UK we seem to be transitioning into a form of democratic socialism with a fascistic heart. The BIG SOCIETY.

I love the names they come up with for these concepts.

The Big Society

Back to Basics

Cool Brittania

Just a load of crap designed to make your turd-burger taste like caviar. David Cameron and Nick Clegg were finished before they started. Doctor Who couldn't sort this shower of shit out. It's hard to find ANYONE who thinks the 'big society' is a good idea apart from David Cameron.

Ironically if the big society worked as David Cameron suggests, we could get rid of politicians altogether. After all, they are an enormous waste of tax payers money. We could get some bin-men to do it for free.

[lizzy]

No doubt about it: the elite is following Marx plan for a NWO step by step. :rolleyes:

yup, with a little Brave New World thrown in.

[lizzy]

Not communism.

]Communitarianism.

Different thing. Look up the 'third way' and 'big society.'[/B]Anyway, communism means NO state. Therefore it technically has never existed since there's some authority guiding it.

That's more authoritarian/totalitarian socialism to me than communism.

In the UK we seem to be transitioning into a form of democratic socialism with a fascistic heart. The BIG SOCIETY.

true, but just samantics..it's back to the feudal system with high tech survallience. we'll all be chipped in 20yrs.

[knightofthegrail]

it's back to the feudal system

Only if transport tech disappears...

[drooh]

true, but just samantics..it's back to the feudal system with high tech survallience. we'll all be chipped in 20yrs.

Well the thing is, if people say something is communism without knowing what it really entails they run the risk of using incorrect terminology. I suppose yes, it's semantics. But regardless knowing the correct terms gives you a broader view of the whole system.

I see the system they want to impose as a hybrid form of socialism personally. Communism was never an applied experiment as far as what it says it means on paper. It was a funded idea to create a dialectic though, sure. Therefore, when I hear people talk about communist russia, communist china, communist korea I find myself thinking - they're NOT communist. They had/have people in charge in a centralized governmental position. Mao, Kim Il Jong, Stalin etc.

Communism means NO STATE, NO GOVERNMENT. Hardly good for these people. They need to keep the front of democratically elected in government to put a shield between themselves and their oligarchical strangelhold.

As soon as people notice government has gone away but things are following some method of organisation, they'll want to trace it back it back to the true source because things won't make sense in the most OBVIOUS way.

Government therefore is a good scapegoat for the people in charge, because the disgruntled plebs will have someone to point a finger at, whilst the elite pull the strings in an unseen capacity. Cardinal Richlieu style.

These people are extremely bright and know about mob mentality.

Economic differences between socialism and communism

In a Socialist economy, the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. On the other hand, in a communist society, there is no centralized government - there is a collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

For a Capitalist society to transition, the first step is Socialism. From a capitalist system, it is easier to achieve the Socialist ideal where production is distributed according to people's deeds (quantity and quality of work done). For Communism (to distribute production according to needs, it is necessary to first have production so high that there is enough for everyone's needs. In an ideal Communist society, people work not because they have to but because they want to and out of a sense of responsibility.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

The NWO will not be communistic on the basis that centralised government will reside at the top as ever. The EU politburos, the elite lobbying groups and the UNITED NATIONS.

Collective ownership of property? Hah.

[flyermay]

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."

---David Rockefeller, statement about Mao Tse-tung in The New York Times, August 10, 1973

Quoted to show @ Flyermay, Mr Rockefeller aint afraid of telling the people what he and his stooges are up to and it makes perfect sense when you look at certain Secret Government organization's which have sprung up on purpose which is no coincidence.

:confused:

I thought you ware going to post the quotes that prove Mao was backed and created by the elite. That's not what that quote says.

[meksar]

:confused:

I thought you ware going to post the quotes that prove Mao was backed and created by the elite. That's not what that quote says.

That quote proves that David Rockefeller was not only backing the Chinese Communist revolution but was very pleased with the outcome of it.

[flyermay]

That quote proves that David Rockefeller was not only backing the Chinese Communist revolution but was very pleased with the outcome of it.

Where... when... how... ? :confused:

He is not admitting any control, baking or even being pleased; he is just stating the obvious: that the Chinese revolution succeeded in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, fostering high morale and community of purpose, and that the social experiment in China is one of the most important and successful in human history... how does that prove in any way that Mao was created, controlled, or even linked to Rockefeller?

[meksar]

Where... when... how... ? :confused:

He is not admitting any control, baking or even being pleased; he is just stating the obvious: that the Chinese revolution succeeded in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, fostering high morale and community of purpose, and that the social experiment in China is one of the most important and successful in human history... how does that prove in any way that Mao was created, controlled, or even linked to Rockefeller?

The Chinese revolution caused the deaths of up to 80 million Chinese citizens under Mao's leadership, this is of course was backed by the Illuminati movers and shakers like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. In modern day Communist China you have things like the 1 child policy and firewalling off many websites.

China and the Illuminati/Jews

http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=149818

[john devine]

The Chinese revolution caused the deaths of up to 80 million Chinese citizens under Mao's leadership, this is of course was backed by the Illuminati movers and shakers like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. In modern day Communist China you have things like the 1 child policy and firewalling off many websites.

China and the Illuminati/Jews

http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=149818

It could be said that if China did not have their one-child limitation family planning policy for most families and instead allowed women to produce as many children as they wanted in China the demand of natural resources and unemployment caused from surplus labor all around the world today would be double what it is today.

I fail to understand why any logical thinking person could possibly think that China's family planning policy is worse than that of anywhere else in the world - i.e. China do not allow families with no means of financial support other than welfare to have as many children as they want to have.

Would people in Europe and the USA prefer it if all Chinese people were allowed, perhaps even encouraged to have as many children as they want to have and then seee hundreds of millions more starving children in the world ?

[meksar]

It could be said that if China did not have their one-child limitation family planning policy for most families and instead allowed women to produce as many children as they wanted in China the demand of natural resources and unemployment caused from surplus labor all around the world today would be double what it is today.

I fail to understand why any logical thinking person could possibly think that China's family planning policy is worse than that of anywhere else in the world - i.e. China do not allow families with no means of financial support other than welfare to have as many children as they want to have.

Would people in Europe and the USA prefer it if all Chinese people were allowed, perhaps even encouraged to have as many children as they want to have and then seee hundreds of millions more starving children in the world ?

Well i think that you know the whole overpopulation thing is being used to cut down population by proxy and even some say that are delibeately doubling population's to do this. I think that are plently of starving people in the world because of things like Monsanto and the increasing food prices.

[flyermay]

The Chinese revolution caused the deaths of up to 80 million Chinese citizens under Mao's leadership, this is of course was backed by the Illuminati movers and shakers like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. In modern day Communist China you have things like the 1 child policy and firewalling off many websites.

China and the Illuminati/Jews

http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=149818

I'm getting really confused now; is it because of the 80 million deaths that Mao is a Rockefeller agent, or because of the quotes? How does that prove your claim anyway; furthermore, how's that even related?

We all hate the bankers, and we all hate tyrants; but that doesn't mean that every tyrant is a puppet nor that every banker is a puppet master.

Edit: about the 80 million deaths (40 actually), I would recommend you to read this: http://davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058855644&postcount=192

[flyermay]

Does the elite want communism?

Absolutely not! Why would they?

There is nothing that the elite (TPTB) fears more than communism. They would do anything to stop the advances of communism; and as history shows, the advances of socialism as well.

Communism would mean the end of their dominion and control over the rest of us; it would mean no state protecting the “do haves” (them) and their interests from the “have-nots” (us); it would mean that the 80% of the total world wealth, in hands of the privileged 20%, would be returned to the unprivileged 80%, it would mean losing the exclusive rights to exploit the world’s natural resources for their own benefit, and it would mean that their wealth would not set them apart as a different privileged class (upper class).

In the same way, they would also do anything to stop socialism, mainly because socialism would mean that all the resources of a country would be for the benefit of its people, and not for the benefit of the corporations they own; making them lose the privilege to exclusively exploit the natural resources that belong to all of us, and therefore, would take away their main source of income. It would also mean that the state would provide most essential needs to its people, which would make their corporations –that exploit those basic needs- obsolete. And it would mean that the estate would work to protect the rights of all its people, and not the rights of the privileged class.

There is the theory that, since they control the estate, socialism would benefit the elite; as everything would come under their total control through the state. But in this case, since the state does not look after the interests of the people, but after the interests of the capital (the elite), this political system would not be socialism; it would be fascism (i.e. Franco’s Nationalist Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, and Hitler’s National Socialism or Nazism; all of which had a total control over the state, for the benefit of the capital, and which actually prosecuted both socialists and communists).

Examples of what the PTB would do to stop the advances of communism and socialism at a national level can be found in the form of: anti-communist propaganda (biased historical records, films and television, etc.), governmental policies (i.e. McCarthyism, also known as “the Red Scare” or “the communist witch hunt”), surveillance of individuals and organisations by the intelligence services (i.e. MI5 investigating George Orwell under the suspicion of communism), and up to outlawing communist organisations and imprisoning or even murdering communists.

And the examples of what the PTB would do to stop communism/socialism in other countries ranges from: Chile, with the CIA funding Pinochet's coup to put an end to Salvador Allende’s democratically elected socialist government; passing through Castro’s seven assassination attempts by the CIA and the failed invasion of Cuba (Bay of Pigs); the funding and training of terrorist groups, like the Mujahidin, to fight the Soviets; the training of 2,000 Bolivian soldiers by the CIA just to hunt down ‘Che’ Guevara; and all the way up to former Yugoslavia, Iraq, and now Venezuela being targeted, according to political analyst Michael Parenti, mainly because they started using the profits generated by their natural resources to build social infrastructures, instead of allowing foreign corporations to profit from them.

From: http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=107721

[john devine]

Well i think that you know the whole overpopulation thing is being used to cut down population by proxy and even some say that are delibeately doubling population's to do this. I think that are plently of starving people in the world because of things like Monsanto and the increasing food prices.

What do you consider that we do about the problem highlighted here meksar:

In our existence for the last 52,000 years on this planet Earth, there have been a total of about 106.billion people. Every year we add almost 78 million people to the world population and are rapidly consuming its resources.

In the year 1 AD we were only 300 million and our population was growing slowly at 0.5% per year. At the start of 1980 the world population was 4.4 billion but in 20 years we added over 1.6 billion people and the population was 6 billion. By 2015 it is predicted we will be more than 7 billion. A British Physicist estimated this alarming rise and predicted our current growth as follows-

'At the current rate it would take only about 50 years to populate Venus, Mercury, Mars, the moon, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn to same population density as Earth. . . It would take only about 200 years to fill [the remaining planets] "Earth-full." . . . What then? .' - J. H. Fremlin

Read more: World Population Clock http://www.medindia.net/patients/calculators/worldpopulation.asp#pop#ixzz1F62Is4y6

http://www.poodwaddle.com/clocks/worldclock/

[bendoon]

Does the elite want communism?

Absolutely not! Why would they?

So they can take control of a Nations finances when the leader of said nation (Czar) would not let them.

Olof Aschberg (22 July 1877 – 21 April 1960) was a Swedish banker and businessman. Aschberg was a leftist sympathizer and helped finance the Bolsheviks in Russia. In gratitude, the Bolshevik government allowed Aschberg to do business with Soviet Union during the 1920s. Aschberg became head of Ruskombank, the first Soviet international bank

He helped finance the Popular Front during the Spanish Civil War

By means of this subterfuge the money used for buying machines and goods in the West looked like being the outcome of proletarian support, in reality it came directly from the Kremlin, confiscated from Russia's rich and the Church


Due to his Jewish background he was endangered when France was invaded by Nazi Germany in 1940



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Aschberg

[truepositive]

They are a fucking joke and they will phael.

[paloem]

did anyone ever think growing up that a one world government was the right solution . that is until i saw the mess that governments make

[edelweiss]

The New World Order is to be "Communism" or whatever you may call this lunacy

Wisconsin Labor Protests and International Socialism - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M3DLGP4UKQ

[flyermay]

So they can take control of a Nations finances when the leader of said nation (Czar) would not let them.

They have that already under capitalism. :) :mad:

[soleil]

From what I can tell, the political paradigm is neo-liberalism economically and international socialism culturally in the sense that a cosmopolitan consciousness replaces national traditions and customs. If I traced these seemingly contradictory elements back to a common point, I think it would be rational materialism of the 19th Century.

The Czar as a New Roman (Romanov) Caesar had to go because of what his family represented religiously and his being the richest man on earth at that time. Where the Romanoc gold went to after the "Russian" revolution is interesting in itself.

He was also part of the Petrine tradition that made the Russian state culturally European. This was reversed in 1917 when Russia became an Asian state.

[christ4life]

It is similar but much worse. Humans were put here to enjoy this planet, take care of it, and live freely not be in slavery.

[bendoon]

They have that already under capitalism. :) :mad:

But the Czar wouldn't allow the Rothschilds to open a bank in Russia so they financed the Communist revolution to get rid of him so they could.

[ufti]

NWO = global capitalism

...but it's always interesting to read the enemy concept of this forums readers. They are all so clever and smart and of course, against the NWO. All the alternatives, they're against them too. What's left? Good question. Being against communism is a typically western-civilization-idea, because it's "bad" and you "must" share. Whoo bad things. Yes, it's really annoying seeing my neighbour eating the same exclusive bread and honey I eat. Terrible, he even has the same car to drive from A to B like I have...:-( Yes communism sucks, but wait a tick. I remember I was against the NWO...Back to topic.

Two reasons:
1. Communism went wrong and was dismissed by the Elite. Bringing it back again would not be a very good idea.
2. Capitalism works because of the greed of the average human being. Humans are obsessed with possessions. Capitalism is a secure way to get all the money and finally EVERYTHING from the slaves.

[flyermay]

But the Czar wouldn't allow the Rothschilds to open a bank in Russia so they financed the Communist revolution to get rid of him so they could.

Absolutely true. How does that make the bankers communists?

You see, the idea of for profit banking and communism is incompatible... furthermore: the idea of "for profit" and communism IS incompatible.

[bendoon]

Absolutely true. How does that make the bankers communists?

You see, the idea of for profit banking and communism is incompatible... furthermore: the idea of "for profit" and communism IS incompatible.

The state profits from Communism and then if the people who are in charge of the state are corrupt they can syphon the profits off to the people who put them in power.

This is the fundamental reason why just changing the system will make no difference whatsoever, Capitalism or Communism or any hybrid of the two will always fail if the people at the top are corrupt and under Communism there is less chance of stopping corruption due to the more authoritarian way of doing things.

[flyermay]

The state profits from Communism and then if the people who are in charge of the state are corrupt they can syphon the profits off to the people who put them in power.

This is the fundamental reason why just changing the system will make no difference whatsoever, Capitalism or Communism or any hybrid of the two will always fail if the people at the top are corrupt and under Communism there is less chance of stopping corruption due to the more authoritarian way of doing things.

There is no state in communism...

... even in real socialism (not the represive dictatorships falsely called socialists) the state IS the people -not a party or a few priviledge individuals-; there is no benefiting the state without a direct benefit for the the people.

[john devine]

the only good ism is naturalism.

survival of the fittest.

[lizzy]

the only good ism is naturalism.

survival of the fittest.

:confused:...Darwin was a slimy toad.

[lizzy]

But the Czar wouldn't allow the Rothschilds to open a bank in Russia so they financed the Communist revolution to get rid of him so they could.
and stole what would amount to many billions in todays' money...had the Tsar co-operated they still may have enforced communism, as the counter lever to capitalism....and mass war profits. (perhaps)

[john devine]

:confused:...Darwin was a slimy toad.

i am not referring to Darwin.

i am referring to nature.

[busa]

Realised thie many years ago.
Glad to see others have picked up on it.

A while ago the old east European communist regimes renounced communism and said to the world we want democracy ! Hail the west ! Communism is over ! The USSR disbanded, the wall came down in Berlin and we all thought commumism had failed.

But it was a planned operation by the communsists. Their plan was to fake their acceptance of democracy and play dead. The next part of their plan was to join the EU. Which one by one they did. Knowing they had to play the game and remain pro-democracy.

The next phase was to infiltrate every corner of the EU parlaiment and start turning the machine from within. Slow and cunning, spinning their lies and manipulation towards Communism EU-style to create the new "USSE".............. The "United States of Socialist Europe "

and blow me they`ve bloody well done it !!!

The EU is not a democracy in anyway shape or form.
and still the middle class, middle England, nice, safe, warm, BBC, Mumsie British believe its all ok and super. :mad: Sat drinking nobby coffee on some cheap aluminium patio furniture on the dirty broken pavement of some shitty British town believing the bullshit that we are all the same and jolly well European !
Muppets !

[edelweiss]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GVRbDPGpx0g/SL9f_wA-0kI/AAAAAAAABCA/gWPb6pWccdQ/s400/portada_libro_traicion_a_occidente.PNG

It's that simple

[busa]

The state propoganda machine aka BBCs constant use of Commie red grates on my nerves.......... Wind up artists !

[paloem]

whats the point of having anything without sharing

[edelweiss]

I think I have to revise or at least relativise my previous comment.

I just learnt about Communists who are anti-Zionists.


Michel Warschawski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



But taking into account that those are Jewish, I think I do not have to change my post.

"Good-guy / bad-guy" game to divide and conquer.

"ISMs", now as then, are the preferential tools of intellectual conquest.

[busa]

whats the point of having anything without sharing

I agree, the elite should share everything they have got with all of us :p
Their wealth, their technology, their food hoards, their free energy...etc

After they have culled us maybe ?

[busa]

I think I have to revise or at least relativise my previous comment.

I just learnt about Communists who are anti-Zionists.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Warschawski



But taking into account that those are Jewish, I think I do not have to change my post.

"Good-guy / bad-guy" game to divide and conquer.

"ISMs", now as then, are the preferential tools of intellectual conquest.

Tbtb can flip flop the good guy/bad guy to suit their purpose.
Its THEIR game and they make up the rules.
They infiltrate, pervert and corrupt.

[busa]

Communist / Far right capitalist.
Same same.

A top class of debauched and despotic elite and one whole class of underclass.

Same either way Commie or Right wing. :p

[meksar]

Global Communist Armed Forces

Global Communist Armed Forces - YouTube

[busa]

"The true army of the Proletariate" ? Wha? :confused:

Made me laugh ;)

[brokenshadow]

Maybe the rich would give up their money. Money is a useless measure of power and is worthless except what value we agree to permit. What if they are stockpiling their money so they can do something pretty obvious... spend it. What if they knew something big was about to happen that would mean the population would no longer measure power in money, whether this was a positive or negative shift. What if this was to happen, by their design or their design was influenced by it and their money would be spent to do nothing more than protect their position while the change is allowed to devalue everyone else. This would be a natural financial investment as a move to a non financial socialist economy occurs.
So essentially, they would measure their power in money and then invest their money in power as the system is shifted.
In any case, talk of various political groups, communism, zionism is becoming outdated, as we are in danger of becoming. (interesting fact, communism is fine with a lower case first letter but zionism shows as requiring a capital in the spell check on this site.) The differences that make no difference are no different. There is only bias to one side or the other, the difference is a minor variation in how to achieve it.

[consciousness]

The New World Order is "Communism"

This is a brilliant deduction. Not only is communism at the forefront of every nation in the world, but communism encourages both slavery and dictatorship, in one system. South Africa, where i'm from, just has to be announced to be a communist nation, because it's already displaying a plethora of communist principles. Democracy is a front for communism.

[edelweiss]

This is a brilliant deduction. Not only is communism at the forefront of every nation in the world, but communism encourages both slavery and dictatorship, in one system. South Africa, where i'm from, just has to be announced to be a communist nation, because it's already displaying a plethora of communist principles. Democracy is a front for communism.



Best definition I ever read!

Kudos.

[flyermay]

Global Communist Armed Forces

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91Bd2JtyYFo&feature=related

I don't understand what this video means; it's only the Russian and the N. Korean army marching... Are these the only 2 countries left with an army? :confused:

[tinyint]

THE CULT OF MARX

THE CULT OF MARX. - YouTube

Should be interesting watch for the Marx leaning folks.
The vid refers to, I'd bet unknown to them, Marx's work, the Oulanem.

[flyermay]

THE CULT OF MARX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJASnt8HqcM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJASnt8HqcM

Should be interesting watch for the Marx leaning folks.
The vid refers to, I'd bet unknown to them, Marx's work, the Oulanem.

"a Luceferian mystery cult"... :D

OMG; you guys are capable of believing any crap posted on YouTube as long as it confirms your prejudices. :rolleyes:

[tinyint]

"a Luceferian mystery cult"... :D

OMG; you guys are capable of believing any crap posted on YouTube as long as it confirms your prejudices. :rolleyes:

So you say, the cited passages do not exist?
He did not write them down?

Funny that ridicule pattern appears on other topics like Moon, Hoax, 911 or Central Banking? Ridicule it is called.

[flyermay]

So you say, the cited passages do not exist?
He did not write them down?

Funny that ridicule pattern appears on other topics like Moon, Hoax, 911 or Central Banking? Ridicule it is called.

Nobody needs to ridicule a claim that is in itself ridiculous; just point it out for those who missed it. Like the one made on that video about Marx being an atheist that perferms satanic rituals.

By the way; did you know that as a matter of fact most of those that fought against Marx ideals were in fact satanists/luciferians (i.e. the Nazis, the illuminati, the American/British freemasonic establishment, etc)?

[lizzy]

This is a brilliant deduction. Not only is communism at the forefront of every nation in the world, but communism encourages both slavery and dictatorship, in one system. South Africa, where i'm from, just has to be announced to be a communist nation, because it's already displaying a plethora of communist principles. Democracy is a front for communism.

yes, exactly. ;)

[tinyint]

Nobody needs to ridicule a claim that is in itself ridiculous; just point it out for those who missed it. Like the one made on that video about Marx being an atheist that perferms satanic rituals.

By the way; did you know that as a matter of fact most of those that fought against Marx ideals were in fact satanists/luciferians (i.e. the Nazis, the illuminati, the American/British freemasonic stablishment, etc)?

You are deploying a typical shill tactic, I am afraid to say. I am also sick to go in circles with you guys.

Basically, you just stubbornly go on ridiculing while denying you don' it, and in fact make a new ridiculous (old) claim you cannot defend.

Did Marx writes that, what is presented in the video? Yes or no?


Groundhog Day.
Bye

[andyh]

Marxism=Socialism.

Its called communism because the american MSM told you so.

[tinyint]

Marxism=Socialism.

Its called communism because the american MSM told you so.

And this attempted socialism killed I don't know how many million people.
UN(EU/US/UK) is dominated by the western branch of this sickness.
Yet we have cheerleaders here, who want to do it again based on deceptive theory which does not address the root problem, but again follows divide and conquer.

[andyh]

And this attempted socialism killed I don't know how many million people.
UN(EU/US/UK) is dominated by the western branch of this sickness.
Yet we have cheerleaders here, who want to do it again based on deceptive theory which does not address the root problem, but again follows divide and conquer.

Thats more like it yep.
I'd agree with that wholeheartedly :)

[bendoon]

By the way; did you know that as a matter of fact most of those that fought against Marx ideals were in fact satanists/luciferians (i.e. the Nazis, the illuminati, the American/British freemasonic stablishment, etc)?

Lol, they invented, promoted and financed Communism.

[flyermay]

You are deploying a typical shill tactic, I am afraid to say. I am also sick to go in circles with you guys.

Basically, you just stubbornly go on ridiculing while denying you don' it, and in fact make a new ridiculous (old) claim you cannot defend.

Did Marx writes that, what is presented in the video? Yes or no?

Groundhog Day.
Bye

Here's another circle for you... do you know what's a misquote and a quote taken out of context?

[flyermay]

Lol, they invented, promoted and financed Communism.

Yeah, yeah... heard all that baseless nonsense before. But it doesn't matter how many times you say it (we could simply contradict each other all night long), it only matters what you can prove.

- Show us that they invented communism...

- Show us that they promoted communism...

- Show us that they financed communism...

Meanwhile, I'll simply repeat what everyone knows already on this forum:

First: Communism came from a Christian group (League of the Just), based on the ideas of a french journalist and political agitator called Gracchus Babeuf. Marx was just hired to write it down, and his name wasn't even printed in any of the editions for the first 50 years.

Next: If one thing history can show us, is that the bankers, TPTB and the Anglo-Saxon establishment went to whatever lengths necessary to stop the spread of communism all over the world -whether it was through simple propaganda, financial threats, coups or direct military involvement-; which is the main reason why you hate and misunderstand this ideology in the first place (though you think it's your own free will).

And last: What you refer to as "financing communism"; was simply an investment from New York bankers who thought they could get the Russian Empire and the Ramanov's forture at a bargain price by giving Leon Trotsky a couple of million dollars for his revolution. Once they realised this money was lost; as Trotsky was exiled from Russia (and latter killed by order of Stalin), they still continued, trying to recover the initial investment, by sending money to Russia in an attempt to bribe both Lenin and Stalin. They lost it all, obviously; since no banker has ever had any control over any communist dictator; not even these ones that completely forgot about this ideology and instead concentrated on gaining personal power.

[tinyint]

Here's another circle for you... do you know what's a misquote and a quote taken out of context?

Ah, now its taken out of context. Where do I know this tactic from?
Did Marx write that sentence? Yes or No?
Its pointless for you trying to veil this inconvenient work of him, and there is much more Marx dirt and his backers. As you know but can't admit. :rolleyes:

[flyermay]

Ah, now its taken out of context. Where do I know this tactic from?
Did Marx write that sentence? Yes or No?
Its pointless for you trying to veil this inconvenient work of him, and there is much more Marx dirt and his backers. As you know but can't admit. :rolleyes:

You don't get it; it's not about what he wrote or not, it's about what he meant.

"I long to take vengeance on the One Who rules from above."

Did he wrote it?... probably yes; but who cares? This could mean whatever you like it to mean. He could be refering to his wife, his boss, the government, the king... but however you look at it, it's simply stupid to think an atheist would say this about a God he doesn't even believe exists; don't you think?

And the next poem:

Conjuration of falling into despair

I’ll set up my throne above,
Cold and terrible will be the peak of it.
Superstitious trembling is at its base,
Master – most black agony.
The one who will look with healthy looks,
Will turn away,
Turn pale and deadly mute,
Possessed by blind and cold deathness,
Will prepare a tomb with his happiness.


Go ahead, explain to us what you think he meant in this poems, why he wrote it, and why you think his poems are his philosophy...

... good luck with your anti-Marx campaign. :rolleyes:

[bendoon]

Next: If one thing history can show us, is that the bankers, TPTB and the Anglo-Saxon establishment went to whatever lengths necessary to stop the spread of communism all over the world -

So thats why they helped the Commies to defeat Hitler and then handed all of Eastern Europe over to them ? :rolleyes:

[andyh]

... good luck with your anti-Marx campaign. :rolleyes:

I don't like Marx either btw.
Bakunin or Proudhon yes. Marx however is an authoritarian socialist. Lenin and Co. of course are even worse.

You'll notice that wikipedia even mention socialism and anarchism in the same section for proudhon. Kind of laughable tbh. They have Marx labelled as a socialist which is correct.

Bakunin however twats the living daylights out of the lot. Which is why they struggle to associate him with anything.

[flyermay]

So thats why they helped the Commies to defeat Hitler and then handed all of Eastern Europe over to them ? :rolleyes:

Or because the enemies of their enemies were their friends...

How do you propose they should have taken over Eastern Europe after WWII; should they have fought the commies also?

In any case; where's the mystery? we all know politicians are **** suckers anyway; why would they behave differently towards communists?

[flyermay]

I don't like Marx either btw.
Bakunin or Proudhon yes. Marx however is an authoritarian socialist. Lenin and Co. of course are even worse.

You'll notice that wikipedia even mention socialism and anarchism in the same section for proudhon. Kind of laughable tbh. They have Marx labelled as a socialist which is correct.

Bakunin however twats the living daylights out of the lot. Which is why they struggle to associate him with anything.

I'm not a Marxists either, but none of us lies or exaggerates about him.

[bendoon]

How do you propose they should have taken over Eastern Europe after WWII; should they have fought the commies also?

Obviously not since they set up Communism in Russia to get rid of the Czar, they weren't then going to fight against them.

[soleil]

Obviously not since they set up Communism in Russia to get rid of the Czar, they weren't then going to fight against them.

There would have been a few shamed faces in Europe and North America had a Russian Nationalist government replaced Stalin and with access to Soviet records, found out Trotsky and Lenin's backers. That's before they'd trace the movement of the Czar's gold!

There is a lot of blood of Christian martyrs on many hands who received Petrine gold. More so than we think.

1945 was not merely the triumph of American capitalism or Soviet Communism it was the triumph of their common element which the banks set up: quantitative dialectical materialism.

With materialist Capitalism facing off materialist Communism, a highly profitable multi trillion dollar Cold War hoax ensued.

[tinyint]

... good luck with your anti-Marx campaign. :rolleyes:

God luck with trying to warm up age old deceptions. Its up to you to be a MArx hugger and cheerleader.
I will oppose this deceptive evil twat and his writings.

[gremlin]

Even brian gerrish talks about this in his latest talk about communism.
We are the "goyim"

Brian Gerrish - Child Stealing by the State ( 1 hour Talk ) - YouTube