Oh geez, Matt might hate me for this...

Let me preface this by saying, Matt (Pressed Rat), I like to think that even if I'm not as present on the forums as I used to be, I'm happy to be on pretty much good terms with you. Plus, I still read your posts and we're on pretty much the same page politically, and I can generally agree with you on your stances. For about a year I've been labeled by many people as a conspiracy theorist, both in America and while in Europe.

I should also mention that this post is not recent at all, in fact I was looking through the archives of ancient hipforums posts and I stumbled upon this. Keep in mind, this is from the year 2001, and I'm only posting this because it's ironic in a way, but keep in mind I commend Rat for not sticking to one close-minded belief system and being able to radically change his viewpoint upon actually doing research in the search for truth.

Okay, here it is:
Pressed Rat: Opinions on Socialism?

I was wondering what any of you people feel about Socialism? I am personally all for it. Please share your thoughts.

I feel that Socialism could be the main force against capitalism, which is evil. If more people were Socialists or embraced Socialist ideals, I think there could be a great deal of change made in this country for those who want it.

I know this is very vague, but just think about it.

 

I was a hardcore Leftist/socialist up until a few years ago. (And keep in mind I am neither Right-wing or Left-wing, I am simply pro-freedom.) I then started to research and actually look into what I was talking about. When I did support socialism several years ago, I really didn't know anything about it, as I find to be the case with many who support it. I only looked into the most superficial aspects of it, without really studying it.

What I found is that socialism is basically a false alternative to capitalism, which was created by the central banks to dupe the masses into believing that placing more power and control into the hands of a powerful centralized government, equates to more freedom and equality for the people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Actually, socialism DOES make all people equal. . . by making them all peasants.

Because I am against socialism, it does not mean I support capitalism as it is currently practiced. Essentially, what we have in America (and much of the Western World) today is a socialist economy that is heading more and more towards communism. Many people will scoff at that notion, because many people only see socialism in the light in which it has been sold to the naive masses. The fact of the matter is, the poor are getting poorer, while the rich are getting richer. Some people might read that and say, "Then why don't you support socialism?" The reason is because socialism is nothing more than the transfer of wealth from the lower and middle class to the wealthy few in control, which is exactly what we are seeing today. In the world today, we see more and more power placed in the hands of fewer and fewer people, while individual citizens become more and more powerless. This isn't the result of capitalism, as our founding fathers saw it. Capitalism meant capitalism for all, not the few and powerful. What we see today is the result of a Hegelian system of control and manipulation. If you are unfamiliar with Hegelian Dialectics, it goes like this:

Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis

As you can see, a Hegelian Dialectic is where you take two apparently opposing systems and combine them to create something else. Today what we see is:

Capitalism + Communism = Socialism

Under a socialist system, individual freedoms and liberties are strictly curtailed. People are forced to give up their personal wealth and liberties to an all-powerful government, who then decide how that money will be allocated (or not allocated) to the herd. The notion of it being to "help the common man" is nothing more than the cover story sold to the ignorant masses. Nazi Germany operated under socialism. Hitler promised his people a utopian world if they would only go along with him and hand over all their rights in the name of security and protection (sound familiar?). Look what the Germans got for their gullibility.

If we look at who is supporting socialism today at the very top, what I said above becomes more understandable. If the rich are supposedly greedy capitalists, then wouldn't it make sense to ask yourself why so many people promoting socialism are filthy rich?

Let's take a look at the tax-exempt foundations that support and fund socialist causes: ie: Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc.. The Rockefellers, one of the richest families in the world, do not pay taxes. This is because their money is protected within the tax-exempt foundations they have created for their own personal gain. Yet they promote socialist causes that the common man (ie: the taxpayers) end up paying for. Essentially, what we are paying for is more government control and more government regulation over our lives. These elitists that are pushing socialism hide behind the guise of philantropy. . . a total lie.

Socialism is nothing more than a con-game of the Econonmic Elite. It's sold to the masses in a way entirely different than is intended by those pulling the strings from behind the curtain. The sad reality is that most people see socialism only in the idealistic light that has been sold to the masses. But most things that are bad often present themselves as good. If not, the people wouldn't accept it.

 

Yes, I understand that the concept of socialism in the minds of the majority is false.

 

hipforums aknowleges thedifference between personal communicatin and public communication. this is 100% personal communication.

 

Rat

This is nothing but groundless assertion and opinion or speculation

I was a hardcore Leftist/socialist up until a few years ago.

An assertion (we can only take your word) Opinion (you may have only thought you were socialist, see the point below)

(And keep in mind I am neither Right-wing or Left-wing, I am simply pro-freedom.)

An assertions and opinion (that has mainly been shown to be untrue is other threads).

I then started to research and actually look into what I was talking about. When I did support socialism several years ago, I really didn't know anything about it, as I find to be the case with many who support it.

An assertion and opinion. (so you were not a socialist you just called yourself a socialist -see above. We only have your word that you actually did the research? What kind of research?)

What I found is that socialism is basically a false alternative to capitalism, which was created by the central banks to dupe the masses into believing that placing more power and control into the hands of a powerful

An assertion, opinion and supposition. (see the many other threads were this is just not proven)

Actually, socialism DOES make all people equal. . . by making them all peasants.

An assertion, and an opinion. (the question would be why you think this if you did the research you must have a realised this is a viewpoint not a fact)

Essentially, what we have in America (and much of the Western World) today is a socialist economy that is heading more and more towards communism.

An opinion (what do you base it on?)

Many people will scoff at that notion, because many people only see socialism in the light in which it has been sold to the naive masses.

An assertion and opinion (meaningless)

The reason is because socialism is nothing more than the transfer of wealth from the lower and middle class to the wealthy few in control, which is exactly what we are seeing today.

Assertion and opinion (this seems to indicate you didn’t do very much research)

Under a socialist system, individual freedoms and liberties are strictly curtailed.

An assertion. (I think you get the drift)

People are forced to give up their personal wealth and liberties to an all-powerful government, who then decide how that money will be allocated (or not allocated) to the herd.

An assertion

The notion of it being to "help the common man" is nothing more than the cover story sold to the ignorant masses.

An assertion

Nazi Germany operated under socialism. Hitler promised his people a utopian world if they would only go along with him and hand over all their rights in the name of security and protection (sound familiar?). Look what the Germans got for their gullibility.

Innuendo

If we look at who is supporting socialism today at the very top, what I said above becomes more understandable. If the rich are supposedly greedy capitalists, then wouldn't it make sense to ask yourself why so many people promoting socialism are filthy rich?

Let's take a look at the tax-exempt foundations that support and fund socialist causes: ie: Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation, etc.. The Rockefellers, one of the richest families in the world, do not pay taxes. This is because their money is protected within the tax-exempt foundations they have created for their own personal gain. Yet they promote socialist causes that the common man (ie: the taxpayers) end up paying for. Essentially, what we are paying for is more government control and more government regulation over our lives. These elitists that are pushing socialism hide behind the guise of philantropy. . . a total lie.

Supposition, speculation, assertion, innuendo and opinion


Socialism is nothing more than a con-game of the Econonmic Elite.

Assertion and opinion

It's sold to the masses in a way entirely different than is intended by those pulling the strings from behind the curtain.

Supposition assertion and opinion.

The sad reality is that most people see socialism only in the idealistic light that has been sold to the masses. But most things that are bad often present themselves as good. If not, the people wouldn't accept it.

Assertion

**

 

It is very hard to argue these points with Rat because I know that as soon as I begin asking why he is making such a groundless assertion he will not reply (except to call me names).

But I’m a terrible optimist so I will pick out a couple and see where it leads?

**

Because I am against socialism, it does not mean I support capitalism as it is currently practiced.

So what form of capitalism do you favour and why?

**

In the world today, we see more and more power placed in the hands of fewer and fewer people, while individual citizens become more and more powerless. This isn't the result of capitalism, as our founding fathers saw it. Capitalism meant capitalism for all, not the few and powerful.

What does that actually mean, can you expand on it so as to make you views clearer?

You talk of the founding fathers (the US) and the world in the same paragraph are you saying that what you believe the founding fathers meant for the US should also be practised by the rest of the world?

What do you mean by “Capitalism meant capitalism for all, not the few and powerful”?

 

It seems to me that the common thread here is extremism. Rat seems to be drawn to extremist views. And so are many at HipForums, typically left wing extremists, but extremists nonetheless.

Reminds me of the time Rat said he used to be into Chomsky. And what does Chomsky tell people? "The media is corrupt and lies, the American government is responsible for all the evil in the world, capitalism is a disaster, democracy has failed, the masses are brainwashed, only the small but growing intellectual elite that shares my view can see this".

What does Rense say? "The media is corrupt and lies, the American government in controlled by the Illuminati which is responsible for all the evil in the world, our economy is doomed because of free trade capitalism, democracy has failed, the masses are brainwashed, only the small but growing intellectual elite that shares my view can see this".

So it seems like the attraction is being part of a small group with elitist attitudes and extremist politics predicting doom, and whether it is Chomsky or Rense is really just a flavor of the month issue.

 

Notice the only two people who responded to my thread thus far (aside from Nick) are the same two people that have been trolling me for the past year, criticizing my every move, while never providing any facts of their own -- something they often accuse me of. That's because they don't have any facts.

Also, notice their diversionary tactics, where the focus is taken off what is discussed in my thread and placed on my character in the form of a personal attack/insult.

Of course Balbus never has any facts, so his tactic is to turn everything I say into a question, asking me to "elaborate" over things any mentally challenged person could figure out for themselves. This is his feeble attempt to back me up into a corner and make me look bad. Balbus apparently views me as being a threat to his views and the views he wants others in this forum to embrace. Why else would he put so much effort (as feeble as his effort is) into disproving/discrediting me? After all, if I was just a kook, as Balbus would have you believe, wouldn't my words stand alone in proving me a kook?

Balbus says it's hard to argue with me, and that's because he has no facts of his own to refute what I say. Instead of labeling everything I say as being "innuendo" or "opinion," he could have refuted MY facts by proving me wrong with HIS facts. Anytime I post facts - as I do in every thread I write - Balbus labels these facts as "supposition" or "innuendo," based on his own lack of knowledge. What is the point in arguing with somebody that isn't up-to-date on their information? It's like arguing with a bag of nails.

As far as Chomsky and Rense are concerned. . .

I agree with some of what Chomsky has to say regarding media propaganda and maufactured consent. However, I feel he is very disingenuous when it comes to geopolitics. I believe he feeds his audience mostly half-truths, while avoiding the bigger picture. I believe he does more to help than hinder the Global Elite by misleading his audience. I find Chomsky's motives to be highly questionable.

Jeff Rense simply has a website and a nationally syndicated radio program, yet you apparently place him in the same category as Chomsky; an author and professor. Can you find a single article recently posted on Rense.com that was written by Rense himself? The answer is no. So why do you act like I am influenced by Rense, when 99% of what is featured on his wesbite comes from third-party sources?

I also find it quite ironic that Pointbreak labels me and others at this site "extremists," yet he doesn't label Bush an extremist; a man who has done more than any other president since Wilson to destroy national sovereignty and civil liberties. Not only is Bush an extremist, he is a traitor to the nation he is supposed to be representing.

People like Balbus and Pointbreak are the real extremists. Their ignorance is extreme.

 

Not the crony capitalism we see today. Crony capitalism is really communism, since it's the consolidation of wealth by an elite few, at the expense of the common man and small business.

 

It's more or less tempting to say something in this thread. More or less. The question is whether anything willl be accomplished by the effort. Well I guess only time will tell and nothing ventured nothing gained.

A remark in preface. I don't know a thing about conspiracy theories so that's not what I'm here to talk about. Off the cuff I'd say conspiracy theories generally come across as dubious. Because it's really hard to keep stuff quiet. However if there are any conspiracies and they're for bad ends (I guess conspiracy always means ""bad") then of course I'm in favor of them being exposed and ended.

The point I want to make, rather, relates to the following.

People will say I like/dislike capitalism/socialism/communism/libertarianism whatever.

The problem with this is it's all too vague. Each one of these entities exists in numerous theoretical and actual variations.

So instead of saying "I like this or that "-ism" what people need to do instead is specify excactly what it is that they want to accomplish in a society.

Let me give an example. Just for example. There's a thread on this forum with a "Bill of Rights" whose author explains that he is NOT trying to achieve a society where everyone has a job or healthcare or happiness. While I personally find this completely unsatisfactory at least the guy's being somewhat specific. Yet even here it's not clear what he IS trying to achieve, except a nation where they speak english, even when he talks about a Christian nation it's not clear what specific things that means.

So wiufcaoltp -- when you say you think socialism might be good or capitalism might be bad -- just what is it specifically that you want to achieve in a society? What is the most important thing, or what are the most important things? What is the goal you are trying to reach? If you were building a society from the bottom up where would you start out, what would be the most fundamental bricks you would put in place, and by putting them in place what ideals would you be trying to accomplish? Thinking in these terms might make it more clear for everyone involved, even for you, just what "-ism" you might find satisfactory and what particular form of that "ism" (i.e. what adjustments or "fine tuning" might be necessary.)

Or you pressed rat what is it you want to achieve for humanity aside from getting rid of evil conspiracies?

Or anybody.

I keep saying that if people don't know where they want to go they can never get there. And yes I am headed somewhere with this.

 

Balbus, I think you are more involved in the political spectrum reguarding political systems and how they work etc. Rat is more involved with what goes on behind the scenes, he feels that he doesn't need to label himself to any political system or form of government because the most important thing right now is just exposing corruption in the current system, when people become more aware and stop the government from microchipping the population, staging terror attacks, lying to start wars, THAN we can worry about what the system of government should be changed to.

Peace and Love,
Dan

 

What we got to do is take things from every form of government and put them all together. Well, maybe not every government, but a few. Everyone shares food and free medical facilities. Also keep free enterprise for other things. It could work. Its just a thought.

 

My dear Rat

I think this might be your problem Rat, you think opinions are facts but and it is a big BUT you only think the opinions you agree with are facts.

**

Crony capitalism is really communism, since it's the consolidation of wealth by an elite few, at the expense of the common man and small business.

But as pointed out in a number of threads your political viewpoint is unlikely to favour the common man and more likely to make the rich elites richer and more powerful. (here is one for people who want to check “Tribute to Immigration's Terry Anderson” http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87769&page=4&pp=10 )

**

Please rat if you ever really wish to debate your views rather than calling me names I am here and happy to oblige.

 

Dear Dan



Rat puts forward opinion as fact and I think that is dishonest e also claims to be of neither the right or left but is a right wing libertarian again I call that dishonest.



There is corruption in the present system and it is in desperate needs of reform but Rat doesn’t seem to want to reform.



You say that -



“when people become more aware and stop the government from microchipping the population, staging terror attacks, lying to start wars, THAN we can worry about what the system of government should be changed to”



But once people are aware of these things as you see it what are they to do about it?

 

Still pretty much the same stuff since last pm.

snowman 5000 at least gives some indication of what he thinks we should be aiming for. He mentions sharing food and free medical facilities.

That's a start by one person. snowman I suggest you carry it further. Explain where you're headed. Is there an underlying idea here?

Everybody needs to get specific. It shouldn't be that difficult or require lengthy explanation.

What should the ultimate goal of society be?

That's the question.

 

Well, Pressed Rat provides some very interesting (and sometimes challenging) research tangents. Most people choose to live in a world of strict definition, it's safe and comfortable. When that illusion is confronted, they freak.

edt: and sds the reason not too many people get too specific is because this is a high traffic site with many eyes in the mist. Know what i mean? A revolution could never be planned on hipforums.

 

youve got to plan what the revolution will bring before the planning of the revolution itself.
again i direct you to "money is an organizational tool" thread in Globalization, because we get into what makes a utopia. but not many responded besides those giving their ideas, id like to see what you all think.
basically we have to redo government, money, education, and environment, we get relativly specific in there.

 

SDS

So instead of saying "I like this or that "-ism" what people need to do instead is specify excactly what it is that they want to accomplish in a society.

A great idea but I’m not sure this is the place for that discussion, but here is something I wrote in another thread maybe this can be a starting point

It was in reply to someone’s attack on socialism.

**

The problem is what does socialism mean and what level of socialism is being talked about?

As I have mentioned elsewhere there are those that think that any bit of social provision or communal effort within a system makes that whole system ‘Socialist’. That kind of extremism, like all extremes has a logical all of it’s own, and can be disregarded but I think it would be interesting to look at the criticisms raised in Rats statement (although I don’t expect the same courtesy in return -)

**

First up I would have to say that I only think my ideas are based in socialist theory not based on it, I don’t consider myself a socialist in the extreme or strict sense but think that many of my ideas can be traced back to some socialist ideas.

I believe we are a community of individuals not individuals that just happen to be living alongside others.

I believe we have a duty to those in our community that is only just secondary to our own interests.

I believe that the short and long term welfare of the community is paramount.

I believe that the community we live in includes not only our immediate grouping but also the world.

I believe that democracy although not perfect is the best means by which the will of the community can be expressed.

**

socialism does everything to destroy jobs through excessive regulation

Who is to say what regulation is excessive?

For example - If a construction firm says it has to pay out a lot of money on complying with fire and structural regulations are they excessive and allow possibly dangerous building to be built?

Now some people, such as libertarians, argue that this can be dealt with by litigation by suing the builder for injury or by a relative suing the builder (if you are dead) in case of the building burning down or collapsing.

But for what, if there are no safety regulations what do you sue them for, for building a dangerous building? The builder just has to say that the individual had a choice to work in or enter that building.

**

“The goal of socialism is to create a welfare state and a population that is dependent on an all-powerful government.”

What is a welfare system? To me it is about ensuring the health, happiness, good fortune; well-being and even prosperity of the community.

To free marketeers ‘welfare’ is wrong because it disrupts the flow of the market. So if a person receives a benefit that subsidised by the community that they could not have gained as an individual, then that person is getting an ‘unfair’ advantage over someone else could pay for it individually and was not subsidised by the community.

For example if everyone gives into a communal chest for education by are taxed on a sliding rate so that more is taken from the richest than the poorest. Then the fund is split up equally. So that in theory the poorest and richest get the same level of education. To some libertarian thinkers this is unfair because the poorer is getting something for nothing and the richer is paying for something for which they receive no benefit which they might have spent on something else that might possibly have helped the communities economy.

In reality the equality of education is never quiet achieved poor children usually come from poorly educated families without the time or resources to give their children the educationally stimulating childhood that the richer parents can achieve.

But to me the free market ideas is silly for one a better-educated citizenry is beneficial to the whole community in ways that can not just be expressed in monetary terms, in that they are likely to be happier. But let us think in monetary terms, the better educated are likely to be healthier which means they are less likely to be a drain on the communities resources and they are likely to have greater fortune, and therefore more likely to contribute to the communities prosperity.

It is for this reason that many on the left including socialists strongly believe in universal education paid for by taxation. Many like me believe in a level of redistribution from the richer to the poorer so that it can be channelled into such programmes that help the community as a whole.

**

socialist policies don't only negatively affect the working poor, but everyone

This goes back to the idea that if only rich people, companies and corporations were just freed from having to pay for all that ‘socialist’ healthcare, education and benefit system, and if only all that ‘socialist’ red tape was cut, like all those rules about health and safely and the environmental regulations were removed they would be able to make so much more money. This would mean that they then could increase workers wages and take on new staff, build schools and hospitals and voluntarily improve workers safety.

Personally I think that thinking is hogwash. It is like the US firms that talk big about being American and seem always to be waving the stars and strips and talking about boasting the US economy, while moving jobs away from American worker so they can exploit workers in other countries. These same US firm then turn around and tell the workers in these sweatshops that they are really on their side and are trying to boast their countries economies.

Basically what is important to them is the profit not the truth and so I am wary of there claims for giving up hard fought for benefits so easily.

**

Ok these are just a few quickly typed musings and I’m sure that there will be time for more later.

 

There’s no such thing in communism as capitalism.
As Socialism is a road towards communism it is "having" own property, classes and state in decomposition... and only in true socialism such thing exists. So, it means socialism = capitalism in decomposition with few private ownership in some cases.

Capitalism practiced by many or by few is not each mans equality. The consequences of the bourgeoisies' system is still causing those who are not many and not few, the powerless, the proletarians and in any way too many.



Peace out!

 

Element 7 you're right about high traffic which means a certain amount of transience. This makes me realize that even I might not be able to finish what I start here. We're headed out of town in a few days.

People lost in a fog? AND HOW.

BUT -- it's not their fault.

KBlaze I went to Globalization and glanced at the thread you mentioned but it was late I haven't had time to get back to it or digest it all so at least for now in the limited time I have I'm going to stick with this thread.

Balbus thanks for your post. It addresses several different questions/problems. I would call them "second order" problems -- which does not mean that their solutions are not of importance, and it certainly does not mean the solutions are facile.

What I'm going to focus is on is what I call a "first order" question. Maybe it's THE first order question.

I keep asking what it is people want to achieve in society. I keep saying if you don't know where you want to go how are you going to get there. I'm surprised somebody hasn't already said fucking get to the point.

So WHAT do we want to achieve in a society?

It's totally simple.

We want to achieve the VERY BEST POSSIBLE FOR ALL PEOPLE.

Could you ask for any more than that? THE VERY BEST POSSIBLE FOR ALL PEOPLE. Why settle for anything less in a society.The devil of course is in the details. How to achieve such a society. I'm not going to concern myself right here and now with that.

I'm not going to concern myself with that right now because first we've got to come to terms about the direction we're headed.

Because there just might be some people around who DO NOT WANT the very best possible for everybody.

FUCK THESE PEOPLE.

Fuck these people who do not want the very best possible for everybody BUT -- it's not their fault. And -- maybe -- they can enlightened...

So to make things simple to see just where people stand the question is:

DOES everyone deserve a Mercedes S Class 600 or DO THEY NOT?

(Ignore for the sake of this example question matters relating to the negative environmental impact etc. Assume it's somehow solar powered and there's no scarcity of labor or resources...)

I say in the society we want to strive for EVERBODY gets a Mercedes S600.

But there may actually be some people out there -- in fact there may be quite a lot of them, time wil tell -- who manifestly maintain that everyone does NOT deserve such a vehicle.

Once again: FUCK THESE PEOPLE. And once again: But it is not their fault...

SO...I'm going to stop here and we'll see what happens and hopefully I'll have time to "set everytbody straight who gets it wrong." But that's actually no small task it takes a lot of reflection to understand what's really going on.

SDS