Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > New World Order / Global Government

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-07-2010, 08:32 PM   #21
kappy0405
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicagoland, Illinois
Posts: 8,256
Likes: 646 (387 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyermay View Post
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.

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.

You have much more patience than I do when dealing with them.
kappy0405 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2010, 09:35 PM   #22
flyermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: back on the DIF
Posts: 7,500
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappy0405 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappy0405 View Post
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.

You have much more patience than I do when dealing with them.
It's something that really puzzles me...
flyermay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 12:00 AM   #23
kappy0405
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicagoland, Illinois
Posts: 8,256
Likes: 646 (387 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyermay View Post
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.

Last edited by kappy0405; 10-07-2010 at 12:01 AM.
kappy0405 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 12:18 AM   #24
bendoon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,954
Likes: 1,346 (693 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappy0405 View Post
International banking is at the core of the agenda, and banking/communism is oxymoronic. Hell, the very word 'government' is oxymoronic paired with communism.
-

Quote:
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]
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyermay View Post
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

Last edited by bendoon; 10-07-2010 at 12:24 AM.
bendoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 12:28 AM   #25
kappy0405
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicagoland, Illinois
Posts: 8,256
Likes: 646 (387 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bendoon View Post
-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.

Last edited by kappy0405; 10-07-2010 at 12:30 AM.
kappy0405 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 12:33 AM   #26
kappy0405
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicagoland, Illinois
Posts: 8,256
Likes: 646 (387 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bendoon View Post
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.
kappy0405 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 12:33 AM   #27
bendoon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,954
Likes: 1,346 (693 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappy0405 View Post
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.
bendoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 12:44 AM   #28
flyermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: back on the DIF
Posts: 7,500
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappy0405 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappy0405 View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappy0405 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kappy0405 View Post
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.
flyermay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 12:48 AM   #29
veritasvoice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sol 3, Mutters Spiral
Posts: 819
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gabeygoat View Post
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?
veritasvoice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 12:52 AM   #30
flyermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: back on the DIF
Posts: 7,500
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bendoon View Post
Quote:
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?

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

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

Last edited by flyermay; 10-07-2010 at 12:58 AM.
flyermay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 12:55 AM   #31
flyermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: back on the DIF
Posts: 7,500
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bendoon View Post
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?
flyermay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 12:57 AM   #32
flyermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: back on the DIF
Posts: 7,500
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by veritasvoice View Post
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?

Please go on, tell us one by one how all those 10 planks are implemented in the US and the UK...
flyermay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 12:58 AM   #33
veritasvoice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sol 3, Mutters Spiral
Posts: 819
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyermay View Post
You must me joking... do you realise that that's exactly what all anti-NWO people want, including you?

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

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?
veritasvoice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 01:00 AM   #34
bendoon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,954
Likes: 1,346 (693 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyermay View Post
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.

Quote:
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

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.

Quote:
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.
bendoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 01:03 AM   #35
veritasvoice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sol 3, Mutters Spiral
Posts: 819
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyermay View Post
Is this another joke?

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.
veritasvoice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 01:03 AM   #36
flyermay
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: back on the DIF
Posts: 7,500
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by veritasvoice View Post
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

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.

Last edited by flyermay; 10-07-2010 at 01:04 AM.
flyermay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 01:06 AM   #37
bendoon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,954
Likes: 1,346 (693 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyermay View Post
You must be joking... do you realise that that's exactly what all anti-NWO people want, including you? l
So you want a state bank controlled by someone like, err, Tony Blair or Stalin or Hitler, maybe even Gordon Brown or Cameron ?
bendoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 01:33 AM   #38
veritasvoice
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sol 3, Mutters Spiral
Posts: 819
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyermay View Post
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

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.

Last edited by veritasvoice; 10-07-2010 at 02:43 AM.
veritasvoice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 01:35 AM   #39
kappy0405
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicagoland, Illinois
Posts: 8,256
Likes: 646 (387 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyermay
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..
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyermay
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyermay
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyermay
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2010, 01:38 AM   #40
kappy0405
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chicagoland, Illinois
Posts: 8,256
Likes: 646 (387 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by veritasvoice View Post
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.
kappy0405 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.