NG 191 controlled euthanasia in the UK.

a reply to: tekn1cal

Amen.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

There is near 0 support for Communism in the US.

Even the self-proclaimed "Marxists" are committed to supporting the status quo and violently silencing critics of it & suppressing any attempt to change it. This is because they don't actually support Marxism, or even know what it is. They simply like the sound of it and possibly the aesthetics. Or are just very stupid. Probably the latter.

What you call "Communism" would give Karl Marx a stroke, cause Lenin to pop an aneurysm and convert Trotsky to Fascism. It is the probably the single thing furthest removed from Communism that has ever been conceived.

Even if one were to argue it is "American Communism" it is still so far removed from the original idea that it would serve as little more than a marketing term that even someone with an entry-level understanding would see right through.

I don't think any actual serious Communist who genuinely believed in Communism would last long in the US. I don't see Blackrock, Vanguard, Amazon, Alphabet, et. al. tolerating all that talk of public ownership, nationalisation, universal equality and the purging of the Bourgeoise. That would be stamped down pretty quickly I reckon. Presumably under the guise of "resisting fascism" which would be very entertaining.

What I call communism? I know what it is and what is wrong with it from both a spiritual and material perspective. The thing is, Lenin and Marx both said that socialism is the bridge to communism. A good friend and colleague of mine from Brazil has told me about the communists and Marxists there, and look how they are doing the same thing there as what happened Jan 6, only they out a lot more people in prison plus they want to imprison the former President. This stuff is not a joke. Agenda 21 is communism with a pretty face. Make no mistake, the elites want us enslave in their one world totalitarian government with them as special exemptions. You can it whatever you like. Professor Antony Sutton explained that “ The NWO is neither right nor left” but is a “synthesis” of the “managed conflict” of opposites in Hegelian dialectic.
Marx and Engels embraced Hegelian philosophy and Marx was steeped in “dialectical materialism”. So if you feel you must mince words then go ahead,
There is also Fabian Socialism, which employs socialist policies in increments. You know, the boiling frog thing. So complete and total control is what they want, regardless of what you feel like calling it. By the way, I just found out some information on the WHO and some new draconian proposals they plan for us. Scary stuff, that is unless you feel safer being forced to get a vaxx and “papers please”!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AOx6179

Then you can post an example of me posting any such thing?

Go on then.

I challenge you to do that.

I'll wait.

Over to you to back up your lies.

I've learned not to argue with narcissist directly. My post was for the others, not you.
Enjoy your nightmares.

a reply to: AOx6179

Interesting.

You replied to my post, not "others".

So, put up or shut up.

Where have I ever posted what you claimed?

Over to you.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Oh please stop with the “Jesus is socialist” bull snip
I didn’t realize you supported that idea till now. Genuinely surprised, but ultimately not shocked. I know several people from Brazil have told me how the Marxist/communist infiltrated the Catholic Church there.
Maybe you will like the new One World Church of the UN … sorry to be brutal but I think it’s necessary to call it out where I see it

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AOx6179

Interesting.

You replied to my post, not "others".

So, put up or shut up.

Where have I ever posted what you claimed?

Over to you.

I said I simply looked at your posts to get a profile on you. I never stated you posted vax pushing, but by power of perception pegged you for what you are.

You could not appear more frantic on this thread. Arguing with several ppl at one time, all without a single useful word.

I go bye bye now. You're not worth it.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

From what i've seen Agenda 21 is a form of Corporate Feudalism. Which is about the furthest thing from Communism or Socialism.

People who believe on socialism always want to blame capitalism. I have posted many times what Antony Sutton wrote about the New World Order. I hold to that. If you look at historical references, you can find that the corporate works does indeed support communism. Antony Sutton wrote many books, including, “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution”. It’s a real eye opener if you dare books.google.com... bks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
He also wrote, “Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler”.
books.google.com... newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
So again for those who wish to mince words and say oh it’s just bad capitalists it’s not real communism, please understand that communism on its owl would fail immediately. Its shears been propped up by capitalist, but not because capitalism is inherently bad. Socialism is merely a stepping stone to communism. Communism is defined as the centralized control of the means of production. What we have is a mixed economy in the US and the Marxists use it to promote their agenda.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

From what i've seen Agenda 21 is a form of Corporate Feudalism. Which is about the furthest thing from Communism or Socialism.

I would like to direct you to the writing of Rosa Koire in her book, “Behind the Green Mask”, where she explains that Agenda 21 is a kind of new “communitarianism”. She is passed away a few years ago, but essentially was a democrat liberal, but saw what is happening especially with regard to real estate, and the top down planning of living arrangements with an eye to “public-private partnerships” and “NGOs”. She said that the Agenda 21 planners were creating a trend where there are fewer “ single family homes” and more “ communitarian” style apartments, and a trend toward concentrating more people into the urban centers and discontinued services to the more rural areas. Just look at communist China or the apartment living in Russia, and tell me why there’s more apartment buildings than single family homes with land? I would hope you will at least hear what this is about rather than stick to some old tired out anti-capitalism nonsense from Progressives. Even Bernie Sanders a card/carrying communist had multiple large homes.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You literally cannot be a Communist and a Capitalist at the same time. They are mutually incompatible ideas.

Corporations don't support Communism. Corporations support Corporate Oligarchy (strangely enough). Under Communism the corporations would not exist and likely neither would the people who head them. Communists take a rather dim view of the Bourgeoise after all.

I have no idea what you think Communism is but it certainly isn't anything Marx & Engeles wrote down. Or Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, Hoxha, Castro, Che, Kim Il-sung, Pol Pot or even Posadas (he was quite the nutty one) wrote down.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You literally cannot be a Communist and a Capitalist at the same time. They are mutually incompatible ideas.

Corporations don't support Communism. Corporations support Corporate Oligarchy (strangely enough). Under Communism the corporations would not exist and likely neither would the people who head them. Communists take a rather dim view of the Bourgeoise after all.

I have no idea what you think Communism is but it certainly isn't anything Marx & Engeles wrote down. Or Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, Hoxha, Castro, Che, Kim Il-sung, Pol Pot or even Posadas (he was quite the nutty one) wrote down.

I beg to differ.
Marx and Lenin both said that socialism is a bridge to communism idk, and that communism is the end goal of socialism. All the writings of the big communist guys show that the communist revolution is a process. You dint suddenly Bouma have communism. What do YOU think communism is? The basic definition is the centralized control of the means of production. That is what the old communist leadership of the Soviet Union tried to accomplish. They had their fstbs, they had bread lines, they had gulags. They controlled what suppliers did and all the quotas etc. The government controlled that. Do you think it is that much different when the US government puts bureaucratic controls on individual. Or private businesses and tells them they cannot drive their trucks unless the rigs are fitted with the kind of equipment that ats people have posted about? Is it different when a U.S. Potus tells us we cannot have offshore drilling and sacks the coal industry and gives taxpayer monies to Petrobas a Brazilian nationalized oil company, or is our congresswoman tells oil companies she wants to bdtiondkuxe them and have govt run all of them??????? What planet do you live on where you cannot see what they are sky h? It’s just a matter of degree and time.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

From a Marxist perspective, capitalism leads to socialism, socialism leads to communism. Every communist is a socialist but not every socialist is a communist. Not all socialists accept Marx’s proposed evolution of human society.

Communism is a proposed classless, stateless society in which all that divides people have been abolished. Scarcity is a thing of the past. Coercion and exploitation are no more since the scarcity of resources that ultimately drove them is no longer an issue. In essence it is a Utopian vision of society.

Communists are those who seek to realise this vision. Marx personally was against Communism as a political movement as he held the belief it would emerge naturally over time. The Revolution of the workers is inevitable and will manifest as an organic mass movement from a classical Marxist perspective.

Socialism, and particularly Marxist Socialism (from what I can remember it’s been a while) is an economic system where the means of production (factories, farms, anything really) are owned by the workers and not privately owned by the bourgeoise, which is capitalism. This is what is supposed to emerge from the Proletarian Revolution. There is a great deal of argument over what form this should take in left wing circles but the keystone of collective ownership as opposed to private ownership isn’t seriously contested.

Some (particularly Engels in his later years) viewed it as a more gradual Revolution akin to the Industrial Revolution, which saw power shift from the nobility to the bourgeoise and heralded the emergence of capitalism from feudalism.

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

From a Marxist perspective, capitalism leads to socialism, socialism leads to communism. Every communist is a socialist but not every socialist is a communist. Not all socialists accept Marx’s proposed evolution of human society.

Communism is a proposed classless, stateless society in which all that divides people have been abolished. Scarcity is a thing of the past. Coercion and exploitation are no more since the scarcity of resources that ultimately drove them is no longer an issue. In essence it is a Utopian vision of society.

Communists are those who seek to realise this vision. Marx personally was against Communism as a political movement as he held the belief it would emerge naturally over time. The Revolution of the workers is inevitable and will manifest as an organic mass movement from a classical Marxist perspective.

Socialism, and particularly Marxist Socialism (from what I can remember it’s been a while) is an economic system where the means of production (factories, farms, anything really) are owned by the workers and not privately owned by the bourgeoise, which is capitalism. This is what is supposed to emerge from the Proletarian Revolution. There is a great deal of argument over what form this should take in left wing circles but the keystone of collective ownership as opposed to private ownership isn’t seriously contested.

Some (particularly Engels in his later years) viewed it as a more gradual Revolution akin to the Industrial Revolution, which saw power shift from the nobility to the bourgeoise and heralded the emergence of capitalism from feudalism.

As I SAID!!!!!! Marx and Lenin both saw the communist Revolution as a PROCESS! What part of that didn’t you get? I skso SAID that in the US, we have a MIXED economy. That’s ECON 101. We have a mixture of various forms of Capitalism, Keynesianism, and socialism. People who are pro communism and pro socialism are trying to bring about at the very least a socialist totalitarian state. A key method of change is Fabian Socialism. That is, bringing about the socialist state incrementally.
So, while they have not achieved yet a full communist state, it doesn’t mean people are not working as furiously as they can to bring it about.
I have given you some important keys to help you not think in black and white here, but understand that the globalists use whatever means they can for world domination, whether that be communism capitalism socialism critical race theory or just plain corruption with voter fraud.
As I said, Antony Sutton wrote that the NWO is neither right nor left but a synthesis of the conflict of opposites.
Maybe this will help you understand where I am coming from

further. In Hegelian terms, an existing force (the thesis) generates acounterforce (the antithesis). Conflict between the two forces results inthe forming of a synthesis. Then the process starts all over again.Thesis vs. antithesis results in synthesis....For Hegelians, the State is almighty, and seen as "the march of God onearth." Indeed, a state religion....We trace the extraordinary Skull and Bones influence in a majorHegelian conflict: Naziism vs. Communism. Skull and Bones memberswere in the dominant decision-making positions -- Bush, Harriman,Stimson, Lovett, and so on -- all Bonesmen, and instrumental in guidingthe conflict through use of "right" and "left." They financed andencouraged the growths of both philosophies and controlled the outcometo a significant extent. This was aided by the "reductionist" division inscience, the opposite of historical "wholeness." By dividing science andlearning into narrower and narrower segments, it became easier tocontrol the whole throught the parts

www.scribd.com...
The interesting thing about Marxism and communism is the concept of “the “withering away” of the state”. The problem is that communism by its nature is a totalitarian state and the controls do not “wither away” leaving dint king kind if grand Utopia, yet they is the glorified ideal presented to college students, seducing them into participating in bringing about the socialist state they desire. Yes this is what socialists desire isn’t it? But it is not av ever has been the practical reality.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: glen200376

www.nursingtimes.net...

Ms Shemirani had also made “derogatory” comments about other nursing and health professionals, according to the NMC document outlining the reasons for her striking off.

"It said Ms Shemirani had described nurses as being “complicit in genocide” and “criminals and liars”, and had suggested that nine out of every 10 nurses were “crap”."

Bitter, and twisted.

Almost like Auschwitz guard refusing to participate or something.
Life is much easier for those who "go along to get along" you know.
As opposed to making millions for bitchute video appearances.

a reply to: Ohanka

Socialism, and particularly Marxist Socialism (from what I can remember it’s been a while) is an economic system where the means of production (factories, farms, anything really) are owned by the workers and not privately owned by the bourgeoise, which is capitalism.

Yes, one of the hallmarks of communism is the abolition of “bourgeois private property”. The statement is that the workers own the means of production. But the real key is that no one individually owns land or the means of production, it is in actuality collectively owned by the state. As Sutton says, the state is supreme in a communist state and the means of production is centrally controlled. Therefore there is no individual control or ownership. A similar situation occurred this year in a community where people were told they would “own the land under our feet”, but it is collective ownership and is in a 501c3 non profit. The people will be paying rent for land they will not ultimately have ownership by the nature of it being collectively owned by the corporation. It is a kind of deception designed to make people think they are really getting something. Of course there will be elections and so forth, but the corporation had to adopt the by laws set by this particular organization which is a network across the US.
But I digress, Klaus Schwab of the WEC told the world that we “will own nothing and be happy”.
Is this not exactly what communism exemplified … so please don’t tell me that these elites are not pushing a form of International communism.
Also, Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that there must be the abolition of the bourgeois family.
Heritage says

Most importantly, Marx said that communism would ensure that children would be educated by the state and not by their parents. Communists, he wrote in the Manifesto, would “rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.” The making of the “New Man” was the priority, and the family was an obstacle.

www.heritage.org...
Moreover, Sutton wrote that the Order of Skull and Bones has been about controlling education by the State. He says that John Dewey, who basically pioneered the current pedagogy of education in our public school system, believed that children are owned by the state and are but cogs in the wheel. He also was a signer of the Humanist Manifesto.
Still, the very notorious mega capitalist Bill Gates promoted the crazy Common Core in use today in our schools, and what does he believe in ? Evidently he believes in such things as depopulation via vaccines. What is being taught in the schools today through a forced state ideology ? Why it’s Critical Race Theory, a kind of cultural Marxism using race warfare.

a reply to: nickyw

That makes no sense, how does free healthcare ad welfare kill off the poor? The current government have created an extra 10 million poor via austerity so they're not killing them off. I've had my life saved countless times by nurses, paramedics and Drs due to severe epillepsy - I wouldn't be able to afford my medications if the NHS and welfare didn't exist - let alone the £5k bill per MRI scan.

Privatisation of healthcare and removal of welfare would kill off the poor and vulnerable, not the other way round.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

So this is pretty much exactly the same as the first thing as before and not really worth addressing.

America is not a mixed economy it is at best a semi-regulated capitalist economy. In actuality it is a parasite economy where a handful of banks own monopolies and steal the wealth of everyone else. They pay off the GOP and DNC through donations to continue this unsustainable heist. These institutions have proceeded to do the same thing to everyone outside of the Chinese-Russian sphere of influence.

These "Globalists" clearly have no intention of transitioning to a socialist or communist state as evidenced by their actions. They concentrate the wealth of entire nations into the hands of a few and promote ideas such as CRT to divide the populace. This is pretty much directly counter to building a socialist or communist society.

When Socialism was gaining traction among some in America in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, Occupy Wall Street was hijacked by neoliberal progressives (dying in short order afterwards) and globalist-sponsored issues such as CRT & gender (which have proven to be heavily divisive within society) were heavily promoted by the media while criticism of the banks mysteriously came to an end. Personally I don't think that to be entirely a coincidence.

Traditionally the merging of far left and far right ideas is called Fascism. A gross oversimplification of fascism but it's good enough. But the "Globalists" clearly aren't fascists since under fascism all is subservient to the state, whereas the globalists intend the state to be subordinate to the corporations.

I don't know why you consider the absolute apex of robber baron capitalism to be a sign of an international communist (or socialist) conspiracy.

I am familiar with the works of Antony Sutton but I am afraid I don't accept his ideas. I do not believe that the Powers That Be in the west had anything at all to do with Nazism, Fascism or Communism. The emergence of these ran directly counter to their goals. I feel they were a reaction to the influence of the international forces he claims created them.

Not that anyone would miss Nazism. Thank you Powers That Be. Though Stalin certainly played an important role there.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Ohanka


But I digress, Klaus Schwab of the WEC told the world that we “will own nothing and be happy”. Is this not exactly what communism exemplified … so please don’t tell me that these elites are not pushing a form of International communism.

No it isn't. Because everything would be owned by Kalus Schwab and his friends. It's essentially global feudalism. Which is what I said previously.

Which is actually a step backwards using old Reverse Santa Klaus' theory of societal evolution.

a reply to: Ohanka

Here is why I think you are mistaken about Agenda 21 and it’s true goals

Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable....1 — United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
I think eventually you will get what I am saying here.
For whatever reason, you do not wish to see communist totalitarian goals and instead say it’s just feudal capitalism. What Sutton has said and what I’m saying is it’s neither right now left but it is still totalitarian rule nevertheless, just that many of the elites benefit from it.
Anyway, the thread is really about euthanasia, which is used as a form of population control. Remember when that paragon of Progressive media propagandists said on national tv that he believed in euthanizing people (and especially his own dad) and believed that the ACA is good for the country ? I remember it like it was just yesterday.

a reply to: bastion

you've just walked into the trap of leaping to the wrong conclusions as on the surface it would seem counter intuitive to a eugenicist's dream but the idea is to not give the poor quite enough to thrive you see and comment on that part yourself.

Central to birth of the uks welfare state where many eugenicists notable ones include Beveridge and he used the inverted birth rate to convince other eugenicists of the value of the welfare state, the idea is to create smaller families so those who do survive have the better genetics and learn the right kind of virtues.

that doesn't change that the nhs has failed as has private healthcare, as does European healthcare, look how long the scandies where sterilising people, how long our welfare state was deporting orphans to be abused, how long the nhs was abusing mental health patients and how long children where dying in Canadian orphanages (the mental health and orphans scandals Transend nationality, continent and culture)

we're all in the same boat and our safeguards are again messed up, there is a reason that all changed in the 70s and we need a similar evolution of our safeguards today..

I would argue we tear down the broken and fix rather than copy the failed ideas of others wherever they are in the world all are failing in different ways as they did in the 60s and 70s..