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

a reply to: Kali74

Looking at those "explanations" from Marx, we see conflicts.

The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

Then, the 10-planks say;

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. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation 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 liability 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 labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

... ^^^^ re-defined as "Failure Incorporated"


Marx was an expert of confusion and delusion.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

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.

Who says I don't know that ?

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Rather it's tiresome dispelling delusion. And you clearly don't comprehend what Marx is saying. He is saying abolishment of property of the bourgeois (today we would call them corporations), not artisan property (today we'd call that small business) and not hard earned personal, private property (today we'd call that homes, cars, land, bank accounts etc).

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.

a reply to: xuenchen

I don't see conflicts, I don't agree with Marx's approach/transition to Socialism, but then again I read beyond the planks.

a reply to: Kali74

After thinking about this, I wonder if you are referring to the "employee-owned" cooperative model where the employees own the "means of production", as opposed to the bourgeois owner of a corporation or business. In essence, the proletariat becomes the "shareholders", instead of the traditional stockholders who buy stock with their own money and get the dividends or returns of their investment.
portlandwiki.org...

Now, in all of this discussion, can you link it to the thread topic of Leftist type Illuminati?

a reply to: Kali74

Rather it's tiresome dispelling delusion

Oh sheesh well then I agree with you

a reply to: Kali74

I don't see conflicts, I don't agree with Marx's approach/transition to Socialism, but then again I read beyond the planks.

You do? Well then please tell us what is in between those planks the rest of us apparently don't see? This should be interesting.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I am, as was Marx, otherwise known as Socialism. His mistake which all Marxists today know full well, was the transition phase... after having won a revolution the proletariat becomes the State with ultimate control over everything in order to seize the property of the bourgeois and redistribute to the public and upon completion of redistribution the State is abolished... never happened, never would happen as power and money corrupt.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I've already quoted and linked in previous posts.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Oh and:

Now, in all of this discussion, can you link it to the thread topic of Leftist type Illuminati?

I don't think there is an Illuminati of any ideological persuasion or any at all. I don't think there is necessarily an NWO either. I think we have a group of Nations each with a set of non-cooperative Elites (meaning they don't cooperate with each other anymore than they have to) that buy influence within their respective governments in order to further their profits with the exception of some individual Elites being driven to spread their own morals within their respective nations and it's those individuals that tend to fall into an ideological category... but for the most part, the rest just buy whoever they think will further their profits and it matters frig all which party's they belong to.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Rosinitiate

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.

Who says I don't know that ?

Oh, I know you do But its an important lesson and I saw the opportunity to share.

Should we define what we mean by "Illuminati" just for kicks?

Perhaps we all have different ideas about what the word means, and that is setting the drift back into trite long-standing arguments about left right up down etc.

Are we harking to Weishaupt's outfit of 1776?

Was there an "Illuminati" prior to Weishaupt?

Is/was there more than one "Illuminati"?

a reply to: Kali74

I don't have a problem with true liberals. The problem is the elites hide behind the liberal movement to push their agenda. And they have been successful in co opting parts of the Republicans.

Libertarians to me is more similar to classical liberalism. Thomas Jefferson was a hardcore 2nd amendment guy. Modern day liberalism has been hijacked by globalist NWO scum like George Soros. He wants to shut down energy production in America so we would be forced to buy his foreign energy investments. I can go on forever on this financial terrorist punk.

a reply to: Kali74

So you believe that socialists will just confiscate the wealth of those evil capitalist corporate owners and all will be well and the little proletariats will have their own money cause the Elites will be brought to their knees? Is that what you imagine?
Then how come all the Russian people were subjected to such horrid things as having to stand in bread lines for a crust of bread then a different line for some meat, another one for whatever else......how come anyone dissenting was sent to a gulag in Siberia?
Don't bother to tell me what I do and do not know. It seems that you accept some parts of Marxism which are convenient to your dream and reject all the other manifestations which have come with the practice of it. Marxism is an exercise in futility.

Tell me why you think that only the so-called bourgeois rich people will be brought down? Do you not understand that every paycheck the average worker gets is taxed as much as the State can get away with? You may only make 15 bucks and hour and yet you are still paying for some gal who has 15 kids and expects the State to pay for them while Warren Buffet has his money in tax shelters. Oh wait, Warren-Tax-Me-More was caught NOT paying his taxes.....
The practice of socialism and the welfare state has destroyed the middle class in the US.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Kali74

So you believe that socialists will just confiscate the wealth of those evil capitalist corporate owners and all will be well and the little proletariats will have their own money cause the Elites will be brought to their knees? Is that what you imagine?
Then how come all the Russian people were subjected to such horrid things as having to stand in bread lines for a crust of bread then a different line for some meat, another one for whatever else......how come anyone dissenting was sent to a gulag in Siberia?
Don't bother to tell me what I do and do not know. It seems that you accept some parts of Marxism which are convenient to your dream and reject all the other manifestations which have come with the practice of it. Marxism is an exercise in futility.

Tell me why you think that only the so-called bourgeois rich people will be brought down? Do you not understand that every paycheck the average worker gets is taxed as much as the State can get away with? You may only make 15 bucks and hour and yet you are still paying for some gal who has 15 kids and expects the State to pay for them while Warren Buffet has his money in tax shelters. Oh wait, Warren-Tax-Me-More was caught NOT paying his taxes.....
The practice of socialism and the welfare state has destroyed the middle class in the US.

No and it seems that reading comprehension is an issue here or you've fallen under the logical fallacy that because I clarify what something is and what it isn't that I must support it.

Socialism isn't unique to Marx, I am a socialist but I am not a Marxist. I believe that worker ownership of the means of production is the best economic model, modern socialists like myself don't support violent revolution to achieve socialism and we don't necessarily believe, I don't anyway, that seizing the wealth and property of the super rich is required. I personally think that you just simply stop doing one and begin doing the other, gradually.

I don't give a flying crap what Warren Buffet does with his money, you are again, illogically assuming I must like Warren Buffet because he's a 'Leftist' (he's not, he's a corporatist that worked in the Democrat camp).

It seems that you accept some parts of Marxism which are convenient to your dream and reject all the other manifestations which have come with the practice of it.

Yes, that's called logic and the ability to look at something objectively. Accepting or rejecting anything wholesale is often foolish and the mark of zealotry. What I find acceptable in Marxism is socialism, which came before Marx as well as calling Capitalism exactly what is bull****.

So... how about you tell me how this boogey-man Illuminati came to be and how can they be stopped?

originally posted by: amfirst1
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.

The reason there is no ban on abortion is because the SCOTUS struck down existing restrictions with Roe v. Wade. Increasing states' rights only shifts from power from a centralized government to state government. It's still government, so it can still be authoritarian: perhaps less or even more so than the federal government. Let me explain some terms, since some people seem to not understand their meaning (rather than as scare words):
Communism - a primarily economic system that aims to distribute wealth equally throughout a political entity through the distribution of ownership and abolition of money (a controlled economy).
Capitalism - a primarily economic system that relies on continued economic growth in a political entity through exploitation of resources, private ownership, and the use of a market economy.
Individualism - a primarily social system that promotes individual wants and interests above that of society.
Socialism - a primarily social system that promotes societal wants and interests above that of individuals.

These are pretty basic pillars of thought, listed by their goals. Some would argue that Communism and Socialism are socioeconomic systems. Their goals are identifiable as one or the other, but the means of how they achieve these goals is usually a combination of social and economic, in theory. This isn't how it has to be, however. Many people only seem to consider Capitalism an economic system - yet, without a great deal of social infrastructure, it wouldn't be possible.

Unfortunately, it gets more complicated when you start looking at leadership (I'll classify it as such) - aka: government -
Authoritarianism - a primarily leadership system that puts faith and obedience to authority/government.
Libertarianism - a primarily leadership system that puts faith and priority in individual freedoms.

These are fairly opposed viewpoints. Instead of 2 axis, we now have 3, which is far more than a single axis. You can classify most political thoughts through these ideas - example:
Liberalism - a subset of individualism and authoritarianism, with the creation of government protecting individual liberties.
Anarchism - a subset of individualism and libertarianism, with the abolition of government protecting individual liberties.

China, for example, isn't communist; its system is a combination of socialism and capitalism, with a healthy smattering of authoritarianism. The state (society) is the dominant social force and highly authoritarian, yet it has a market economy hallmark of capitalism. Some people would classify this as state capitalism - as if China itself were a gigantic corporation. This isn't entirely accurate as of recent years, as more semi-private and fully-private companies have sprung up.

One of the most difficult to discern in this context is Fascism (Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy); it's a confounding combination of a whole lot of stuff! Authoritarianism (or more accurately, totalitarianism) and a mixed economy (not quite market, nor totally controlled) are central tenants. Nationalism is as well, which would imply a form of socialism; yet, it was in practice very conservative on social issues outside of the state-level. This isn't surprising, really, as it took various ideas from various ideologies. In a way, these were corporatist experiments; a society and economic system shaped by major interest groups.

As you can see, Communists are not anti-social freedom, but rather anti-economic freedom.

a reply to: Greven

You used far too many words in that excellent summary Greven.

You must be one of those snotty academics.

a reply to: Greven
Time for me to post this again...excerpt from Antony Sutton found on Alex Jones site

Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither "left" nor "right." "Left" and "right" are artificial devicces to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change.
The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of "left" and "right" presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.

In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State...

So who or what is the State? Obviously it's a self-appointed elite. It is interesting that Fichte, who developed these ideas before Hegel, was a freemason, almost certainly Illuminati, and certainly was promoted by the Illuminati. For example, Johann Wolfgang Goethe (Abaris in the Illuminati code) pushed Fichte for an appointment at Jena University.

The Order believes the opposite to most of us. That is crucial to understanding what they are about. So any discussion between left and right, while essential to promote the change, is never allowed to develop into a discussion along the lines of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., the best government is least government. The discussion and the funding is always towards more state power, use of state power and away from individual rights. So it doesn't matter from the viewpoint of The Order whether it is termed left, right, Democratic, Republican, secular or religious - so long as the discussion is kept within the framework of the State and the power of the State.

www.prisonplanet.com...

a reply to: Kali74

Oh brother. Now you are calling me a zealot because I showed how you are taking whatever you want of Marxist philosophy and leaving the rest. You are only taking what is relevant to your ideal, whatever the heck that is. And that was after you accused me of not understanding Marx.
I think it is you who do not understand fully the philosophy of Marx, and thus you think you can take a few parts of it, then call it some moderate branch of communism which is different from every other style practiced in the real world, that is Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, or that which Castro used to destroy the economy in Cuba. You are the one dealing in pie in the sky Utopian ideals extracted conveniently from a philosophy which has ravaged entire countries.
Guess what, I don't give a flying rat's patoot what kind of silly names you want to call me for opposing your line of thinking.
If you want to understand Fabian socialism, then understand this....socialism is a bridge to communism, Marx said it, Lenin said it, and Fabian socialism is the building of the socialist bridge brick by brick nice and slow so the frogs in the pot don't get hot and jump out.
With Fabian socialism, we can pretend that all the chaos and decay in society is really the result of the evil Capitalists, because hatred of Capitalism and free enterprise is at the very root of Marxism, while the economic systems are all mixed up. This we call a "mixed economy". Today we have a mixed economy in the US, that is Keynesianism all mixed up with Capitalism and socialism.

The Fabian Society is a British socialist organisation whose purpose is to advance the principles of socialism via gradualist and reformist means.[1][2] The society laid many of the foundations of the Labour Party and subsequently affected the policies of states emerging from the decolonisation of the British Empire, most notably India and Singapore.Originally, the Fabian society was committed to the establishment of a socialist economy, alongside a commitment to British imperialism as a progressive and modernizing force.[3] Today its viewpoints are more social democratic

The Fabian Society, which favoured gradual change rather than revolutionary change, was named – at the suggestion of Frank Podmore – in honour of the Roman general Fabius Maximus

Fabian socialists were in favour of reforming Britain's imperialist foreign policy as a conduit for internationalist reform, and were in favor of a capitalist welfare state modelled on the Bismarckian German model; they criticised Gladstonian liberalism both for its individualism at home and its internationalism abroad. They favoured a national minimum wage in order to stop British industries compensating for their inefficiency by lowering wages instead of investing in capital equipment; slum clearances and a health service in order for "the breeding of even a moderately Imperial race" which would be more productive and better militarily than the "stunted, anaemic, demoralised denizens...of our great cities"; and a national education system because "it is in the classrooms...that the future battles of the Empire for commercial prosperity are already being lost".[12]

en.wikipedia.org...


hmmm minimum wage and Capitalist welfare state and national education part of Fabian socialism. Gee who would have thought...

a reply to: Kali74

I don't think there is necessarily an NWO either

Are you calling George Bush Sr a liar?

Is George Soros a liar too?