The New World Order is "Communism"

[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]

Originally Posted by bendoon

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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]

Originally Posted by veritasvoice

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]

Originally Posted by nosebleed

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]

Originally Posted by veritasvoice

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]

Originally Posted by bendoon

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]

Originally Posted by bendoon

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?

[flyermay]

Originally Posted by veritasvoice

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]

Originally Posted by veritasvoice

Karl Marx was a blood relative of the Rothschilds.

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

Originally Posted by veritasvoice

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.

Originally Posted by veritasvoice

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.

Originally Posted by veritasvoice

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?

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]

Originally Posted by flyermay

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?

"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/cl...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]

Originally Posted by luciferhorus

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.

Originally Posted by luciferhorus

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]

Originally Posted by flyermay

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...unist_les.html

[bendoon]

Originally Posted by flyermay

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

Mr Left gatekeeper himself, what a crook.

[flyermay]

Originally Posted by luciferhorus

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]

Originally Posted by bendoon

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]

Originally Posted by flyermay

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.

Originally Posted by flyermay

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?p...d=alwTE0Z5.1EA

[flyermay]

Originally Posted by bendoon

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]

Originally Posted by bendoon

Chomsky

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.