Coincidentally, I just made a video about the role the bankers and corporations played in fomenting the rise of communism. The video is based mostly on actual quotes of these very elite individuals I speak of. This is all fact and absolutely zero theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmMoiGldsgQ&feature=channel_page
I moved this here because I wanted to start a political discussion on the spread of Communism and banking throughout the world. In so many ways, Eastern European countries' economies collapsed because of Communist Russia and the Iron Curtain, only to quickly be replaced with capitalism. The Eastern European people were so starved for basic goods & imports, they devoured ideas like 'democracy' and 'free markets' in the name of promised prosperity and growth. You can say that they ate it up, hook, line and sinker - and wanted the solution offered to them. How is the cyclical Communism vs Capitalism flow of capital related in political terms in your mind?
Except it isn't a "theory" as the title suggests. It is 100% unadulterated fact that has not been and cannot be contested. This is all based on actual government records. I will be uploading a video where Mr. Sutton further elucidates the capitalist-communist connection. I will make an in-depth response to this thread later on today. I did not create this thread nor the title, just so everyone knows. This thread was originally a response posting to a thread in the "Socialist" forum.
Capitalism and communism are simply at opposite ends on the same line. You could label that line simply "banking" or the "money system." I call it the controllers' ruse. As I have said before, communism is monopoly capitalism in the hands of the state. Under corporate control it's called fascism. There is really no difference as ultimately both are controlled and administered by the bankers and/or corporations via control over the state, which is simply the military/control arm of the banksters and corporate elite. So after the fall of the Iron Curtain we saw Russia and other countries become more capitalist, while the capitalist nations were long in the process of becoming more communist -- or rather socialist, as socialism is the dialectical synthesis of capitalism and communism. So really what we saw was a sort of standardization worldwide. If you look at the major wars of the past 90 or so years, prior to the so-called "fall" of communism, they were mainly between two supposedly opposing ideologies called capitalism and communism (at face value only -- both sides were controlled by the same people), with an internationalist agenda being the long-term goal. Every war that's ever been fought (in the past 100 years) has served to centralize power in globalist hands, furthering their agenda towards a one world socialist government -- again, socialism being the dialectical synthesis of capitalism and communism. So if the dialectic states that thesis vs. antithesis = synthesis, then that would be capitalism vs. communism = socialism. It's the pitting of two apparent "opposites" against one another to create a synthesis being neither fully capitalist nor communist. What we see today in the West is not purely capitalist, nor is it purely communist. It's elements of capitalism and communism combined, which is referred to as "the third way," which is a type of state socialism. It's interesting because just prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev gave a speech before the Polit Bureau, saying that soon they would hear that communism was dead but not to believe it, because it would later emerge on a much greater scale. It's also interesting to note that Gorbachev, who openly embraces communist ideology to this day, is a darling among the global elite. He is very close friends with people like Maurice Strong and Al Gore (who himself as family ties to people like Armand Hammer), and is near the top of the environmentalist movement with his organizations such as Global Green and Green Cross International. He is also a member of the elitist Club of Rome. This is what Gorbachev said in a magazine titled Monetary & Economic Review (p. 6) in 1996: "The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order." Sounds very similar to what the Club of Rome was saying in their publications, such as The First Global Revolution (pp.104-105) from 1991, where it states: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself. It's rather interesting that the communists (read: international bankers) have stated in their own documents that a major step towards achieving their goals of a world socialist government would be in creating a global tax, which we now see in the process of being forwarded under the guise of "saving the environment." This of course is just one among many things that I could go on all day about. I will add more to this later.
Yes but you always say that, and it turns out to be crap. Who can be bothered to debunk you when you absolutely do not care whether what you say it true or not?
Just uploaded these videos last night: The Capitalist-Communist Connection: Part I Part II ------------------------------------- From Professor Antony C. Sutton's book 'Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution' (1974): While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to "go political" and make society go to work for the monopolists -- under the name of the public good and the public interest. This strategy was detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his Confessions of a Monopolist. [1] Howe, by the way, is also a figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution. Therefore, an alternative conceptual packaging of political ideas and politico-economic systems would be that of ranking the degree of individual freedom versus the degree of centralized political control. Under such an ordering the corporate welfare state and socialism are at the same end of the spectrum. Hence we see that attempts at monopoly control of society can have different labels while owning common features. Consequently, one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists -- to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because historians -- with a few notable exceptions -- have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing. The open-minded reader should bear two clues in mind: monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers. Suppose -- and it is only hypothesis at this point -- that American monopoly capitalists were able to reduce a planned socialist Russia to the status of a captive technical colony? Would not this be the logical twentieth-century internationalist extension of the Morgan railroad monopolies and the Rockefeller petroleum trust of the late nineteenth century?
