A moderate take on socialism and communism etc..

Many of them are dupes and useful idiots (as Lenin referred to them) who simply don't know any better. Not everyone pushing this is a bad person. It's the ones at the top who are using these people below them to further an agenda which is favorable to them. I am referring to the super-elite like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers.

 

Yes, this is true. However, the ends are exactly the same. Today we're being moved in the direction of a New World Order through fabian socialism, which is a non-revolutionary approach that works to implement the same goals (collectivism) but through an incremental, stealthy method. Look into the Fabian Society. Tony Blair is a prominent member of this organization. Their emblem is a wolf in sheep's clothes, and the emblem for fabians themselves is the turtle, because they work slowly to implement their agenda, unlike, for instance, the Leninists, who worked to achieve their goals through bloodshed and revolution.

 

Fabian Society emblem (wolf in sheep's clothing)



The Fabian Window (hammering the world into shape on an anvil)

"Remould it nearer to the heart's desire"

 

Most people do not realize that the Anglo-American elite funded the rise of both Communism and Nazism. The evidence proving this is absolutely overwhelming, but don't expect to hear about it in school or on the "History Channel."

 

i didnt know that about tony blair, are any more members of New Labour members? or are they just another "social fascist" party as the comintern would call them. thanks for the info by the way.

id love to see that evidence, just out of curiosity. but my opinion whether its true or not, just because certain people and groups were funded, doesnt mean that the idea itself is funded. and the workers certainly arent funded, so i doubt they'll be any conspiracy theories about the working class.
and trust me, i dont take anything i read about in school, or watch on tv seriously.

now your starting to make more sense to me, i completely agree that the reformists are pretty much orchestrating the EU, ive thought that for a long time. and i, as every other rev, denounce them completely.

but id say the ends are quite different from Marxist-Leninist-Maoist goals actually. would you equate the goals of Maoist (now they resemble fascism much more) China or Vietnam to the goals of modern european social democrats? the Maoists who put emphasis on agrarian reform, peoples war, and of course opposition to anglo capitalism (until recently). the modern social democrats would seek to integrate with these nations, rather than oppose them. perhaps my question to you is, why would communism be created and go to war with western capitalsm, if they were created by the same people?

 

Well, I am not sure if you know this, but the New Labour Party was a creation of the Fabian Society. So regardless if they are actual members or not, they belong to an organization that is the offshoot of the fabians and are forwarding fabian policy.

Another prominent member of the Fabian Society is Gordon Brown. People like Harold Wilson and Tony Benn were/are also members of the society.

As far as the communists and nazis being funded by the Anglo-American elite, you can look into the work of the late Stanford professor, Antony Sutton, who wrote books such as Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution and Wall Street and the Rise of Hiter.

Both books can be read for free online.

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

There is also an interview that Sutton did in 1983 with radio show host Dr. Stanley Monteith, which can be viewed here:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Sutton+Hitler&search_type=&aq=f

Great question. To understand this, it's important that you first understand the Hegelian dialectic. The Hegelian dialectic is thesis vs. antithesis = synthesis. What we are talking about is two apparently opposing forces pitted up against one another to achieve a desired outcome or, as it is more properly called, synthesis. Communism was created to be the dialectical opposite to capitalism. Communism was used for many years as a boogeyman that we were told sought to destroy the West (.ie the Cold War). Muslim fundamentalism is now the new boogeyman and, much like communism, was also funded by the West. You see, in order for governments to stay legitimate in the eyes of the public, they always need an external threat to justify wars and more control over the people (in the name of their protection, of course). Every war has resulted in the same outcome, which is the consolidation and centralization of more power and control into the hands of fewer and fewer people. So it makes sense that they would create a boogeymen that appears to be in opposition to people's way of life, therefore causing the people to become clamorous of the government to protect them. It's the same game throughout history. So the outcome of the first two World Wars was the global body known as the United Nations, which was created to become the eventual world government. The UN was initially sold to the public as a peacekeeping organization. However, it has since evolved into an octopus with its many splinter organizations that have the power to override national sovereignty with international laws and regulations. So what we're seeing is the groundwork being laid for global governance. The EU also plays a big role in this, because similar superstates are in the process of being created all around the world. For instance there is the North American Union, which is to include the US, Mexico and Canada, along with a standardized currency modeled after the Euro, called the Amero. So everywhere we look we see things heading in the same direction, which is the direction of world government, where the state serves to manage the people and monitor their every move. Whatever you want to call it, it's fascism.

 

ive read this before, ive read a little bit about hegel.

so far i only see evidence that the soviet union is the only leninist regime that the west funded. and yes communism is the dialectical opposite of communism, but again you only provide evidence that the Bolsheviks were funded by the west, and not all of the other socialist states. and yes muslim fundamentalism was funded by the west, everyone knows that one.

completely agree, and this is fact not opinion.

it makes sense, but im still quite skeptical that an entire ideology can be dismissed as being funded by the capitalists in wall street.

i know this too well...

agreed

as you can see, i agree with some of this, but disagree on others. to start, wheres the evidence that the west sponsored the Chinese revolution, or the Cuban revolution? and the west certainly didnt back the anarchists and marxists in the Spanish Revolution. according to you they did fund the soviet Union though, who indirectly ruined their anarchist society, but the soviet union also fought against the fascists, who were allied with germany and italy. did the west fund franco and mussolini too?

 

thanks for this, i recall you giving me the link for the bolshevik/wall street connection before, which i havent finished reading.

 

I do not own a television. Although I am a liberal Democrat, I read The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, and The New York Post several times a week. I read them because they are conservative, Republican newspapers. I enjoy investigating different points of view.

You seem to assume, Pressed_Rat, that most Americans are too stupid to know what is best for them, but you know, not only what is best for you, but what is also best for most Americans. What is your basis for that assumption?

 

I skimmed through both these books and while they allege ties of certain bankers to these regimes, they don't even begin to make the case western banks were responsible for either Bolshevism or Hitler. I mean its not even close, they don't say that at all.

Have you ever read them or do you just like the titles?

But communism really did exist, people really did believe in it, and it really did represent a threat.

Again, by funded you mean you can find some ties, no matter how small or indirect, and then pretend this represents the entire meaning of everything and therefore muslim fundamentalism was created like a frankentein monster. This is ridiculous.

So without conspiracies, there would be no wars? Ridiculous.

Obvioulsy not, since great empires and colonies have been dissolved, and countries have broken up. Other wars have accomplished nothing.

Again, this is absurd circular logic. Without conspiracies, no threats would exist in the world?

So basically, without conspiracies, nothing would ever happen in the world?

Except that it wasn't.

Except that it is utterly powerless, and is merely a forum for great powers to meet and, if they choose, act. Try to remember the pre-UN era - how much national sovereignty was there in a period where European countries routinely went abroad and colonised entire continents?

Here about that vote in Ireland? The EU is continually stalling on the dullest, most meaningless attempts at reforming itself. It is not a superstate by any measure.

The thing is though, nobody is actually proposing an NAU or an Amero. You have been routinely humiliated whenever you try to claim either one is on the way.

So they only thing missing is the slightest shred of evidence for it.

 

Yeah, I am sure you skimmed through them. I think you're hoping that people lack the critical thinking you are devoid of and simply take your word on it. I implore anyone to simply watch the first ten minute clip of the Antony Sutton interview where he makes it clear that the West (corporations and banks) helped to build up the Nazi regime. Then again, you're the type of person who will deny that IG Farben even existed.

Sure it existed, and that's because useful idiots like yourself believed whatever they were told. It's no different than religious fundamentalism, except your religion is worship of the state. It was Lenin who said they would use useful idiots to further their cause. No, I am not implying you are a communist, but like the communists, you are a blind follower of whatever the state feeds you without question. Instead of believing communism to be the big enemy, you believe the Muslims are the enemy and that we all must rally around the state to save us while they eviscerate habeus corpus and posse commitatus. You and your ilk believe that the solution to all the world's problems is to turn the Middle East into a glass factory. You and your neocon cohorts are no better than the Nazis, and in many ways you share the same ideologies.

But it was. Popular books have been written about it. Zbigniew Brzezinski admits that funding to the Mujahideen began six months prior to the Soviets invading Afghanistan. Of course you will deny that and claim it's made up, even though I have the article to prove it. Sure much of the funding came through the CIA and was funneled into the Pakistani ISI (a CIA offshoot), therefore making it "indirect" funding. But I think most people with a working brain can connect the dots and see the obvious.

Well, I don't believe in individual conspiracies because the matrix reality that you have swallowed hook, line and sinker is itself a conspiracy. Everything you know has come from authorized sources. I pretty much believe that everything we are told regarding anything of real importance is a lie. You are living fully in the matrix, and you even admit it in your profile.

Yes, empires dissolve and always by design. Do the true rulers of these empires dissolve and mysteriously vanish? No, they move on to another country where they build up the same system, only to be eventually toppled again. The same bloodlines of the ruling elite that runs the world today is the same ruling elite that was in power thousands of years ago.

Nothing like we know it today. Why do you act like conspiracies are impossible or that they don't exist? That is the height of mindlessness. It would appear that according to you there can be no alternative explanation to events other than what you're told on the tube.

It's utterly powerless, even though it has the power to override national sovereignty with international laws and regulations. Now they are talking about a global UN tax, yet you will still claim they are powerless. They WANT you to think the UN is powerless. You have swallowed their propaganda yet again.

Your thinking is delusional. You claim it is not a superstate when it is officially admitted to be a superstate. What else would you possibly call it? Yeah, the Lisbon Treaty was shot down by the Irish, but if you followed what was going on, you would know that EU bureaucrats are talking about ways to ram it through anyway.

Well, the person heading this all up, Robert Pastor, openly calls it that in his own book, Towards a North American Community. He calls it a "union," and it was he who coined the term Amero. But continue to deny reality and drink your koolaid. It's what you're best at.

You mean kind of like this:

"... the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences."

- Clinton mentor, Prof. Carroll Quigley, author of Tragedy and Hope (1966)

 

One persons comment is not evidence for a start.

Secondly, as you've said many a time, in your world view (or, as I'm sure you'll say, 'in reality'), every last vote is controlled, rigged, whatever you want to call it, by Bankers, Illuminati etc etc. Surely that the Lisbon treaty lost the Irish vote kinda goes against that idea.

 

When did I say one comment is evidence for anything? I could post hundreds of others like that from high-profile elitists and bureaucrats, but why would I want to waste my time with people who don't want the truth and will do anything to avoid having to look at the truth? You people love wallowing in your own ignorance and apathy. It's really quite sad.

Ireland is one of the few places where electronic voting machines don't predominate. If they did, I am sure the outcome would have been the opposite of what it is. It doesn't matter, though, because it looks like the fascists in the EU are going to ram it through anyway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7453084.stm

 

He asked for a shred of evidence and you provided him with a vague quote is all I'm saying.

Surely the elite can rig an election without electronic voting machines. Shit, quite a lot of the world doesn't use them, or at least doesn't use them as the predominant voting system, and yet the Elite must still have control there.

 

Finnaz - I am not going to argue with a naive, brainwashed little collectivist. I could not care less what you think of me. Nice quote in your sig, BTW. It's nice to know you believe the state should own everything. Collectivism is so groovy man.... pass the bong!!!!

 

Well at least you didn't stoop to belittling me . I'm not for ultimate state control over everything, though I'll admit my tag does give that idea. Just because I disagree with your world view that everything is controlled by a shadowy elite doesn't mean that I disagree with your political views. (though I don't, entirely anyway). I believe that through progressive taxation and limited police intervention in peoples social lives, socialist welfare policies can be introduced without too much of a burden on the taxpayer.

Essentially, I'm not a collectivist nor an individualist, you can't run a society on either, we're the wrong species. Collectivism works with ants and bees because they run primarily on unquestioning instinct (as far as we know at any rate), individualism works with solitary animals for that reason, they're solitary.

In addition, my sig quote doesn't mean that the state should own everything in the slightest. It means no one should. How exactly can I say that I own a piece of land, it's just that, a piece of land. 'Land should be enjoyed and cultivated, not owned, and the only reason it is owned is through violent conquest' is a basic translation.

 

The UK does not have electronic voting machines either.

It can't be "rammed through", as it is, as all 27 countries have to ratify it.

What will probably happen is it will be tweaked, and Ireland will, funnily enough, have another go at voting yay or nay. Like the Neice Treaty.
If they say nay again, it will probably go around and around untill they say yay.

 

yeah man puff, clear, then pass that shit. collectively of course, we must make sure everyone gets an equally large hit.

you realize humans have society right? so that means were not solitary, so how can you say were the wrong species for collectivism to work? btw im not picking a fight with you, just kindly debating, i dont want you to get the wrong impression.

 

I'm just saying complete collectivism is unattainable, because we ( or at least a sizable proportion of us) want to achieve more, go against the norm, live differently etc and if that weren't the case then humanity wouldn't have advanced as far as it had. Complete collectivism doesn't work because not everyone is similar enough to work as a hive mind. As far as I'm concerned at any rate. You need a balance of both, people need to be encouraged to work for the common good, but at the same time allowed to go against the grain, if only to keep life exciting and new.

 

collectivism isnt about being the norm, or to make everybody similar. collectivism just implies mode of exchange, and management of labour and needs. it doesnt imply that you cannot be an individual, or should not strive to achieve more. in fact a free collectivist society would allow each individual to coexist with others and themselves to a much greater extent than individualist capitalism would. communists, socialists, and anarchists, all are staunchly progressive, and dislike capitalism, because of the reasons you stated, it doesnt allow people to achieve more than the status quo.i think you've seen collectivism, and individualism in the wrong way. but im not gunna come here and tell you what to think, ill gladly try and explain to you why collectivist economics would be me much more progressive and liberal than individualist if youd like.