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.

 

There is no "communist" NWO

page: 1
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+11 more 
posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I keep hearing and reading about the "communist" or "socialist" NWO plot for "global enslavement". Alex Jones/Ron Paul types, this thread is for you. I actually read G Edward Griffin's "Creature From Jekyll Island" years back so I'm well aware of the source material for much of the NWO conspiracy. G Edward thinks the Federal Reserve, World bank/IMF and UN are out to build a global socialist system. As do many right wingers. The Rothschild's are communists, the early industrialists were communists etc. It gets weird. Reality inverted on its head.

First off, Robert Mcnamara was head of World Bank for how long? If anyone knows who he is the thought of him heading a "socialist bank" is absurd. Secondly, World Bank and IMF have been facilitating "free market" reforms in developing countries for decades. This means privatization of public goods and services. Slashing of social programs etc. Austerity/structural adjustment. They have also forced "free trade" on developing nations rather than the protectionism most advanced nations went through in their early days. The "New World Order" people such as Bush spoke of is in fact the expansion of "liberal democracy" into the developing world, in ways that benefits the advanced western nations first and foremost. It's not about communism. It's not about creating a centralized global government. It's not about anything even remotely close to socialism.

Capital, as in, the corporations/banks who run our governments & economies, would NOT be able to profit with a centralized global government. They need a bunch of separate nation states in order to chase cheap labor. In order to avoid providing safe workplace conditions. In order to avoid regulations. In order to avoid taxes. A centralized global government would be the last thing banks/corporations want.

Decentralization of resources is also desired. There's a reason the Ottoman Empire was broken up, in large part so oil companies could negotiate better prices via divide and conquer. It would be easier to control/manipulate a series of competing smaller nations rather than a unified whole. This is why Nasserism was fought by these same people in the west. They want the balkanization of the Middle East and hence its resources, not a global government.

en.wikipedia.org...

Every single place actual socialism was attempted the people behind all the "NWO" talk have actually squashed all attempts at socialism. This is the true face of capitalism. Death squads in South America, Africa and Asia. Bombing campaigns in all of the above. Assassinations. Overthrowing democratically elected governments. Propping up puppet regimes. Forcing decentralization/market reforms. Forcing developing nations into "free trade". Forcing development which benefits western banks/corporations. The entire Cold War was fought for profits and to expand capitalism into the developing world. To keep actual socialism from manifesting. A little bit of Keynesian economics is not socialism. It's not communism. There is no centralized global government being planned. The USA and it's leaders want a decentralized global system, fragmented and easier to profit in. These banks and corporations will do everything within their power to stop a global government from manifesting. They will do everything within their power to stop actual socialism from manifesting.

The UN is a tool of control/manipulation, specifically the UN security council. When the US isn't controlling/manipulating the process they ignore the process. It's the furthest thing from a centralized socialist government. There will not be some morphing of China, Russia, the EU and USA. It will never happen. The very nature of capitalism/nationalist competition prevents it. Not to mention the cultural differences.

The only global governance necessary is that which makes trade/commerce possible. There needs to be a certain amount of continuity nation to nation in order for markets to be stable. In order to create a large labor force. In order to educate populations and make investing safe for capital. An actual centralized global government would give global labor too much bargaining power. It would take away tax havens. It would bring about global workplace standards etc all of which would make capital accumulation impossible. The financial institutions and corporations in control of western governments exist to accumulate capital. They will not advocate a system which would threaten or end their very existence.

The Rothschild's are not nor will ever be communists. JP Morgan was not a communist. Rockefeller was not a communist. The Warburg's were not communists. On and on. There is truth to be found in criticizing such families. The amount of capital they accumulated does indeed put such families in lopsided control of governments and economies. New money is also joining the club. There is a nexus of accumulated wealth on earth which holds disproportionate control of land, resources trade and commerce. This is capitalism, not communism. The way to end this sort of wealth accumulation would actually be a global government to tax them out of existence. It's exactly what Thomas Piketty advocates in his book "Capital in the 21st Century".

People look at that idea and laugh. Precisely because it's an impossibility right now. Nobody takes it seriously:

www.newrepublic.com...

Can any of you offer real evidence that the USG (government) is fighting to establish a global communist/socialist government?




posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I agree that the idea of a global communist/socialist gov't is just stupid.

It is obviously oligarchist.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: incoserv
I agree that the idea of a global communist/socialist gov't is just stupid.

It is obviously oligarchist.


Most communist/socialist systems are oligarchies in disguise.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

I hope no one believes the corporations and operatives are inept enough to try a frontal assault. No way.

They are going to deftly manipulate the narrative to convince you to walk into the trap on your own and carry your chains with you. With a little help from low IQ authoritarians if anyone actually "wakes up".

They are so close to closing the deal, they just have to buy off a few more Dems in the US Senate. They are selling the US and the new "savages" will be the people that foolishly try to resist the chattel slavery. The world will change after corporations officially take over. Maybe they will stop the charade of elections altogether?

Hope you enjoyed American Sniper. They are laughing their asses off at that one.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
They use elements and the fear of socialism to drive the Hegelian dialectic - essentially pushing the opposition in to the very spot they wanted them. As for any New World Order it's center it is capitalism, no question about it. Of course the NWO is still the Old World Order, the NWO is yet another boogeyman to prod the masses.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
*rubs forehead*

We're headed for a corporate-controlled world. The governments of the world will have very little voice, as the corporations that dominate everything will dictate policy.

Has anyone seen Ridley Scott's "Alien" movies? Remember how the "corporation" is the one that explores space? It's going to be like that in the future. Due to globalism, standards of living will start evening out around the world. For some, this will cause their standard to go up, and in the case of the USA -- ours to go down. There will be a great "equalization" so to speak.

This is a direct result of the globalization of the world. We're all going to work for a megacorp, live in corporate housing, shop at corporate stores, watch corporate media, and so on and so forth.

It's coming, and we aren't really doing much to stop it. The ultimate elite don't care, they've got their pleasure-domes secured away in places like Dubai. Besides, money is only for the middle and lower classes. When you're on the top of the ladder, you just barter and exchange favors. Want a new car? Ask the CEO of Ford, he'll give you one in exchange for a weekend at your private island.
edit on 22-6-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: incoserv
I agree that the idea of a global communist/socialist gov't is just stupid.

It is obviously oligarchist.


Most communist/socialist systems are oligarchies in disguise.


Hmm, I don't know about that.

And, most capitalistic societies are oligarchies in actuality, including ours. And it isn't really hidden...



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
*rubs forehead*

We're headed for a corporate-controlled world. The governments of the world will have very little voice, as the corporations that dominate everything will dictate policy.

Has anyone seen Ridley Scott's "Alien" movies? Remember how the "corporation" is the one that explores space? It's going to be like that in the future. Due to globalism, standards of living will start evening out around the world. For some, this will cause their standard to go up, and in the case of the USA -- ours to go down. There will be a great "equalization" so to speak.

This is a direct result of the globalization of the world. We're all going to work for a megacorp, live in corporate housing, shop at corporate stores, watch corporate media, and so on and so forth.

It's coming, and we aren't really doing much to stop it. The ultimate elite don't care, they've got their pleasure-domes secured away in places like Dubai. Besides, money is only for the middle and lower classes. When you're on the top of the ladder, you just barter and exchange favors. Want a new car? Ask the CEO of Ford, he'll give you one in exchange for a weekend at your private island.


That is fascism, i.e. far right wing agenda, not communism.

"Fascism is the merger of corporation and state." -Musolini



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: JeanPaul
I keep hearing and reading about the "communist" or "socialist" NWO plot for "global enslavement". Alex Jones/Ron Paul types, this thread is for you. I actually read G Edward Griffin's "Creature From Jekyll Island" years back so I'm well aware of the source material for much of the NWO conspiracy. G Edward thinks the Federal Reserve, World bank/IMF and UN are out to build a global socialist system. As do many right wingers. The Rothschild's are communists, the early industrialists were communists etc. It gets weird. Reality inverted on its head.

First off, Robert Mcnamara was head of World Bank for how long? If anyone knows who he is the thought of him heading a "socialist bank" is absurd. Secondly, World Bank and IMF have been facilitating "free market" reforms in developing countries for decades. This means privatization of public goods and services. Slashing of social programs etc. Austerity/structural adjustment. They have also forced "free trade" on developing nations rather than the protectionism most advanced nations went through in their early days. The "New World Order" people such as Bush spoke of is in fact the expansion of "liberal democracy" into the developing world, in ways that benefits the advanced western nations first and foremost. It's not about communism. It's not about creating a centralized global government. It's not about anything even remotely close to socialism.

Capital, as in, the corporations/banks who run our governments & economies, would NOT be able to profit with a centralized global government. They need a bunch of separate nation states in order to chase cheap labor. In order to avoid providing safe workplace conditions. In order to avoid regulations. In order to avoid taxes. A centralized global government would be the last thing banks/corporations want.

Decentralization of resources is also desired. There's a reason the Ottoman Empire was broken up, in large part so oil companies could negotiate better prices via divide and conquer. It would be easier to control/manipulate a series of competing smaller nations rather than a unified whole. This is why Nasserism was fought by these same people in the west. They want the balkanization of the Middle East and hence its resources, not a global government.

en.wikipedia.org...

Every single place actual socialism was attempted the people behind all the "NWO" talk have actually squashed all attempts at socialism. This is the true face of capitalism. Death squads in South America, Africa and Asia. Bombing campaigns in all of the above. Assassinations. Overthrowing democratically elected governments. Propping up puppet regimes. Forcing decentralization/market reforms. Forcing developing nations into "free trade". Forcing development which benefits western banks/corporations. The entire Cold War was fought for profits and to expand capitalism into the developing world. To keep actual socialism from manifesting. A little bit of Keynesian economics is not socialism. It's not communism. There is no centralized global government being planned. The USA and it's leaders want a decentralized global system, fragmented and easier to profit in. These banks and corporations will do everything within their power to stop a global government from manifesting. They will do everything within their power to stop actual socialism from manifesting.

The UN is a tool of control/manipulation, specifically the UN security council. When the US isn't controlling/manipulating the process they ignore the process. It's the furthest thing from a centralized socialist government. There will not be some morphing of China, Russia, the EU and USA. It will never happen. The very nature of capitalism/nationalist competition prevents it. Not to mention the cultural differences.

The only global governance necessary is that which makes trade/commerce possible. There needs to be a certain amount of continuity nation to nation in order for markets to be stable. In order to create a large labor force. In order to educate populations and make investing safe for capital. An actual centralized global government would give global labor too much bargaining power. It would take away tax havens. It would bring about global workplace standards etc all of which would make capital accumulation impossible. The financial institutions and corporations in control of western governments exist to accumulate capital. They will not advocate a system which would threaten or end their very existence.

The Rothschild's are not nor will ever be communists. JP Morgan was not a communist. Rockefeller was not a communist. The Warburg's were not communists. On and on. There is truth to be found in criticizing such families. The amount of capital they accumulated does indeed put such families in lopsided control of governments and economies. New money is also joining the club. There is a nexus of accumulated wealth on earth which holds disproportionate control of land, resources trade and commerce. This is capitalism, not communism. The way to end this sort of wealth accumulation would actually be a global government to tax them out of existence. It's exactly what Thomas Piketty advocates in his book "Capital in the 21st Century".

People look at that idea and laugh. Precisely because it's an impossibility right now. Nobody takes it seriously:

www.newrepublic.com...

Can any of you offer real evidence that the USG (government) is fighting to establish a global communist/socialist government?



I agree with you that if we look at the proposed programs by the UN, World Bank, most global advisors, etc, it's moving AWAY from any communism or socialism that was popular in the early 20th century. It's moving TOWARDS shock economics, free markets (supposedly), and Chicago School of Economics policies.

Almost all of the former communist countries have moved at least somewhat towards more capitalistic models, such as China or Russia. China hasn't enjoyed true communism since probably the death of Mao.
edit on 22-6-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

And what I see are dynastic corporate factions, similar to monarchs. They will own all the land, and the people will simply "work upon the land" giving a majority of what they produce to the corporation.

I call it "neo-feudalism". There will be a very small class of "corporate royalty" that is free to do as they please. The rest of the population will be slaves through debt to the corporation, working their entire lives for financial freedom once near old age.

We're letting it happen, and in some cases helping it along by supporting the corporations with our very own dollars.

Don't say nobody warned you...
edit on 22-6-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
The only solution if we don't want one day to be living is the sort of dystopia found in science-fiction is to abolish the market little by little. You have to realize that the market is not useful anymore for a series of activities, because we have attained a level technological prowess that makes the market obsolete. If you don't want to become one day a slave to a corporation, you have to make it so that your survival isn't tied to anything that has to do with the market. The first step IMO is to nationalize food production, let's say produce 50 different sorts of vegetables and fruits, until it becomes a public service, etc.. Then if you want a ferrari, you are free to become a slave to the market, it would be your choice.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: gosseyn

We'd have to solve the problem of resource scarcity. Which, isn't really a problem but an artificially created one to keep the "rat race" so to speak running.

In Star Trek this is solved with replicator technology. Want a Rolex? Replicate it. Want a cheeseburger? Replicate it.

We'd also have to have a reduction in population. Sure, the Earth can support 10 billion people, but human beings don't like being in large numbers. We feel small, insignificant and worthless. We swarm and kick each other's teeth in to compete. It's not a pretty sight.

We'd also need to retain regional power/autonomy but manage to have an effective world governing body to oversee things like climate change and planetary defense and resource distribution

So, if we can solve resource scarcity with a reduced population and an effective over-arching world governing body -- we could enter a new human golden age.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: JeanPaul

I hope no one believes the corporations and operatives are inept enough to try a frontal assault. No way.

They are going to deftly manipulate the narrative to convince you to walk into the trap on your own and carry your chains with you. With a little help from low IQ authoritarians if anyone actually "wakes up".

They are so close to closing the deal, they just have to buy off a few more Dems in the US Senate. They are selling the US and the new "savages" will be the people that foolishly try to resist the chattel slavery. The world will change after corporations officially take over. Maybe they will stop the charade of elections altogether?

Hope you enjoyed American Sniper. They are laughing their asses off at that one.


You fairly well nailed it: A corporationalized world is what is coming, or to use their more or less official word of their own, Globalization. (Think, Walmart, Monsanto, etc. every sector of humongous business that "serves" the public and can make money doing it. That leaves the government free to control the people and to collect taxes. It is socialism to the extreme for the governing aspect, raw capitalism on the services side.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Technocratic Fascist Totalitarianism.

Complete individual and social dependence upon the technologies culturally mandated by the corporate state.

A rat. In a cage. On antibiotics.

Communism? Ha. If we were even that lucky...



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: incoserv
I agree that the idea of a global communist/socialist gov't is just stupid.

It is obviously oligarchist.


Most communist/socialist systems are oligarchies in disguise.


Hmm, I don't know about that.

And, most capitalistic societies are oligarchies in actuality, including ours. And it isn't really hidden...


Sure they are.

You have state control of everything, and the oligarchy consists of the privileged few the state deems smart enough to decide what is best for all the rest. Of course, they have access to the best of everything because they are the elites and deserve it. Besides the system has them in power so who stops them?

Whom do you think the communist party was in the old USSR? or the party officials in China today? They are oligarchs.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
" There is no "communist" NWO "

well the international corporations and banks and governments sure do use a lot of this don't they...


And this too while they're at it....





posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul




Capital, as in, the corporations/banks who run our governments & economies, would NOT be able to profit with a centralized global government. They need a bunch of separate nation states in order to chase cheap labor. In order to avoid providing safe workplace conditions. In order to avoid regulations. In order to avoid taxes. A centralized global government would be the last thing banks/corporations want.


Centralized global government is desirable to enshrine all those inequalities. Who told you that one government can't have different rulings, many tiers citizens and other mechanisms to help corporations in exploitation of different regions on Earth ?
With many nation states there is always a nasty chance that some nation will not play to the benefit of the multinational corporations.
Simply they want Corporations above any national state laws. And USA corporate law, patent law and other legal mechanisms will be the only arbitrator between them . All this backed by USA military power. One world government is USA corporate culture expanded into the whole world, it doesn't means some fancy social guarantees from the "government"

edit on 22-6-2015 by kitzik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
One and a half billion Catholics can't be wrong, can they? Sell your cloak and buy a sword.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

It's not what I would call communistwww.washingtonpost.com...
BUT communists are useful TOOLS .



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: kenzohattori69

They're AR15s now...



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join