It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Liberal Leftists Illuminati - "Taking a look inside the secret leftist billionaires club"

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: xuenchen

This might help you understand in simpler terms.

Hilarious.

I have a B.A. in Political Science (and a B.S. in Computer Science). I actually studied this stuff for four years. I don't need your simplistic and misguided ideas for how the world works.


Well good for you !!

I've studied this stuff for more than 40 years.





posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

That's completely farce the far right is anarchy.

EVen the dirtbag Harry Knows this. He constantly calls the right anarchists and that they don't believe in government.

The right also runs on a limited government platform. Now u can't have authoritarianism when the government is limited. It's impossible.



NAZI - National Socialists Germans Workers Party.

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Well good for you !!

I've studied this stuff for more than 40 years.

If you had made the effort in that time, you would understand that there are various fields of alignment; Social and Economic are the two primary ones. With two distinct sides, and two fields - or axis - then there are at least four sides in total. Some might even extend environmentalism or religion as a third axis to create a more multi dimensional model. Others suggest more nuanced breakdowns of the four quadrants.

An example - abortion. Conservatives in the United States are generally very opposed to abortion, sometimes even birth control methods. Why? If they're all about personal freedom (libertarianism), why isn't the freedom to do these things supported? Homosexuality is often similarly opposed. Instead, they turn to the government (the direct opposite, authoritarianism) to regulate these practices.

Clearly, there is more than one single axis of alignment.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

What do they both have in common. The people who passed those laws are either leftists or moderates like Bush and McCain.

The far right are against those laws. However, they are a minority and usually have no voice. Because the oligarchy have convince the masses that they are fascists. The far right is the biggest threat to the oligarchy. They want to limit the oligarchy's power which is why the entire media owned by the oligarchy is against them.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Most people on the right is moderate on social issues its the reason why there is no ban on abortion. Plus, they support States rights on social issues to decentralize power.

However, it's the leftists that constantly try to push the federal government to mandate their agenda across the board. Even though the states voted differently.

The left constantly bring up social issues of the right, yet ignore why the most anti social freedom Communists is on the opposite side of the spectrum.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Libertarians can be both anti abortion and pro abortion. They just don't believe the federal government should be involved. They are closer to anarchy and further to the right of conservatives.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

All the class room philosophies are just great for discussions.

But they sure cause a lot of damage when applied to the real world.

I made a successful life by understanding the difference.

And without debt too.

Lot's of assets without bank involvement.

It is wise to know the ways of one's enemies.




posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: amfirst1

You think a Democrat official is going to praise Anarchy? No. They know exactly what Occupy brought to the main stage and their failure to co-opt it makes Leftists (including Anarchists) as much a threat as anyone in the Tea Party or the GOP... the objective there is to taint the word for Liberals that are uniformed, politically unaware and easily played for good vs evil. Imagine Noam Chomsky who wears the label Anarchist (A far Leftist) with pride, trying to talk to an audience spoon fed information from MSNBC. They don't understand how far, Left, actually goes and believe it ends with themselves... now here's this Anarchist talking to them, he must of course be Right-Wing because the Democrat officials say Anarchism is Right-Wing. *Blank-stare*



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010




Even though the left extended it you have to give credit to the right for passing the patriot act which essentially turned our nation into a police state.


It would be naïve to give all the credit of the Patriot Act to Bush and the GOP, since Joe Biden himself took credit for being the author of it's pre-cursor, The Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995 after the Ok City bombing. If the liberal left cannot take the credit for something, they will just sack the GOP for the same stuff. It's rather telling that Biden was more interested in taking credit than in following the Democrat script.


Biden himself draws parallels between his 1995 bill and its 2001 cousin. “I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill,” he said when the Patriot Act was being debated, according to the New Republic, which described him as “the Democratic Party’s de facto spokesman on the war against terrorism.”

www.washingtonsblog.com...

The NDAA passed on Obama's watch, and it had bi-partisan support. Although more Republicans did favor the bill(as they did for the Patriot Act), one has to look at the fine print of why bills pass or do not. For instance, the final bill did not include certain provisions on sexual assault in the military, as well as this:

The final compromise, fashioned by the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, leaves out Democratic language that would have eased restrictions on transferring Gitmo detainees to the United States — a provision that would have helped the administration achieve its goal of shuttering the facility.

www.politico.com...

So I'm guessing more Democrats would have been on board if the Gitmo thing would have been in there. It's not like Harry Reid cares about people like Bundy.!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Unfortunately, abolition of private property is not respect for private property. It has to be one or the other. This is one of the few truly cut and dried things.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

A common misunderstanding, sometimes deliberately used to scare people off. Private property is not abolished with Anarchism. Some collectivist Anarchists choose communal living in which the community owns property together and not any individuals... but that is a choice individuals make, to be collectivist or not.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Well, he's right, fascism is really left wing, it's just not as far left as communism. Fascism just allows for partnerships between government and private business. Today, we call it public-private partnerships(in the lingo of Agenda 21), which allows for a blurring of the lines between what is public and what is private.
Nazism was always left wing and socialist. Both Communism and Fascism in the early 20th century were authoritarian, no doubt about it, and both left wing ideologies.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Well I live communally with my family but it's not communism. The hallmark of Marxist communism is abolition of private property. Whatever varying levels there are in implementation are simply relative gradations in the process. Anarchism is merely a tool for achieving their goals, as is lying about it. It's like saying you get to keep that red bandana to wear in the government provided apartment, but you must wear the brown cap to work. In fact, it sounds like you fell for the old hippie commune model of the 60's, which experiments were a complete failure and were promoted by hard core leftists. Tell me, do you know of any existing communes today which classify as communist, which are not State run in a Communist country such as Cuba or China?

I think we also need to distinguish between "Communal living" and the Authoritarian Communism as practiced in the military industrial complex.

I heard some guy on talk radio yesterday call in and talk about this stuff the same way you do, as if communism doesn't really embrace gulags and forced redistribution of property, etc.

edit on 11-5-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The problem with collectivist anarchism is implementation without a centralize state. People will not give up their property for no reason.

It's a reason why these ideas lead to authoritarianism people will not go along with the system u want, so then the state has to force on them.

And the people who normally is in charge will be exempted like always.

U have to understand there always be evil people and they always end up at the top because good people are too naïve to their existence.
edit on 11-5-2014 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This is tiresome.


The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.



We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.



Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.



Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?



But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.


Communists Manifesto Chapter 2

Do you comprehend what is being said here?



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: amfirst1
The problem with collectivist anarchism is implementation without a centralize state. People will not give up their property for no reason.


And I can add that the concept of "Collectivist Anarchism" is just another way to eventually install Communism.

Collectivist Anarchism

In the same bag of tricks of re-defining.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

It really isn't that hard to see who is doing the redefining around here. That is if you're willing to look at all of something historical text tells us or if you're simply trying to justify your ignorance by cherry picking quotes of the authors of said text. Read my above post and tell me again what Marx is saying.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
The Illuminati is really neither right nor left, but embrace Hegelian dialectic, and the synthesis produced is the NWO. Skull and Bones secret society typically promoted Hegelianism and we see the results in an 04 election featuring frontrunners of both the political right and left. Antony Sutton explained in his writing that the synthesis of Hegelian Dialectic under Skull and Bones is neither right nor left. This is why it can get confusing when people who are typically leftist oriented(such as Obama) suddenly promote something which appears to be more Republican oriented, and it is always a very Draconian measure designed to attack our liberty and privacy and bring in the One World Authoritarian Superstate.
George Soros is a perfect example of a leftist billionaire who funds all types of left wing organizations, and he is notably purported to be connected to the hip of the Rothschild Illuminati family bloodline. Soros uses Capitalistic methods of getting money, then funneling that money into leftist groups. This is typical of the Illuminati method, and the Bush family used it when funneling funds and support to the Nazi regime.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

It is only tiresome to you because I will not back down and you refuse to admit that Communism is abolition of private property and of individual liberties. Marx's Communist Manifesto is rife with all the hallmarks of such. Don't bother with trying to convince me there is another way to implement Communism.

From the Communist Manifesto right from your post


In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.


I am familiar yes, with this very passage and the one just above it where Marx especially attacks bourgeois property.
But once you take away anyone's property, what does it become? How about redistribution of wealth? Yes, that is socialistic isn't it, where we take one person's property and give it to someone else. Thank you SO MUCH for making my point for me. The fact is, the State is used to force people to give up their own property so the State can redistribute it as it pleases to whatever group is the favored one at the time.
If the State can confiscate my personal property and make it someone else's, then it both abolishes "bourgeois" property and gives it to someone else and it becomes another person's property.
Do you understand this concept?
edit on 11-5-2014 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: xuenchen

This might help you understand in simpler terms.

Hilarious.

I have a B.A. in Political Science (and a B.S. in Computer Science). I actually studied this stuff for four years. I don't need your simplistic and misguided ideas for how the world works.


Well good for you !!

I've studied this stuff for more than 40 years.



Than you would think by now you'd have realized that the Left v. Right argument is tired and is a strategy used against the populace to keep us (the citizens) at war with each other because of ideologies that on any practical level no one really gives a #. The topics that are sensitive get artificially inflated to serve the stated purpose of divide and conquer.




If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.


~Sun Tzu "Art of War"



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join