Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Communist Rules For Revolution! Have they reached their goals?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
The following is an excerpt from the Vampire Killers 2000 booklet.


HAVE THEY REACHED THEIR GOALS?

COMMUNIST RULES FOR REVOLUTION (Captured at Dusseldorf in May 1919 by Allied Forces)


Corrupt the young; get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness.

By specious argument cause the breakdown of old moral virtues; honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness.

Encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward such disorders. (L.A. riots were just a coincidence? ... Of course!)

Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. (Racial differences?)

Get people's minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays, and other trivialities.

Get control of all means of publicity. (Media)

Destroy the people's faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and obloquy (disgrace).

Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscation and leaving the population helpless.


You can read this booklet in it's entirety here
www.lawfulpath.com...

Have they reached their goals?

Mod Edit: Caps Title – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28/4/2006 by Umbrax]




posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Wow, looks like a totalitarian agenda which could fit right in the current political climate.

Good find Chezz, thanks.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Yeah that is quite an interesting find lots to read on the site. But whats with the name?



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
The 'document' is a fake.

www.snopes.com...

It simply doesn't exist, anywhere. Its a fabrication.

Also, 1919, seems a little early for them to be using illuminati-esque world-take over schemes. Communist plots were more along the line of 'Light the fuse, throw the bomb into the market, and then wait for the proletariate to rise up against the bourgoise exploiters! *raises fist* "



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Ok thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure it will go along way with "Cug." I guess you can't believe everything you read on the internet and you learn something new everyday. Here is what I was looking for which basically says the same thing.


Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto

www.uhuh.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.uhuh.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

www.snopes.com...

It simply doesn't exist, anywhere. Its a fabrication.

Also, 1919, seems a little early for them to be using illuminati-esque world-take over schemes. Communist plots were more along the line of 'Light the fuse, throw the bomb into the market, and then wait for the proletariate to rise up against the bourgoise exploiters! *raises fist* "


Funny but the snopes site doesn't explain why the document is a fake so I'll take their well meaning assertions with a grain of salt.

All the same do you agree that any of the mentioned goals seem to have been achieved or strived for in our current western societies?

I thought the Illuminati has been around for 100's of years and that communism known under different terms like the Fabians in London existed pre the 1919 revolution? I'm sure of it.

The rabble that Rothschild and buddies paid for to start the communist revolution in Russia were working to a script even though they were not aware of it. It was called the communist manifesto.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Also, 1919, seems a little early for them to be using illuminati-esque world-take over schemes. Communist plots were more along the line of 'Light the fuse, throw the bomb into the market, and then wait for the proletariate to rise up against the bourgoise exploiters! *raises fist* "


Still, it has been around in this form since at least 1946:

From the Urban Legends site:


The earliest known publication of these rules was in the periodical Moral Re-Armament in February 1946, and circulation of the list really took off after Florida state attorney George A. Brautigam endorsed them as true in 1954.


Who could have written such a document and to what end?

Still scary if this kind of propaganda has surfaced 1946.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 12:53 AM
link   
On this one, i'm inclined to take the side of denythestatusquo when he says to Ngydan


Funny but the snopes site doesn't explain why the document is a fake so I'll take their well meaning assertions with a grain of salt.

All the same do you agree that any of the mentioned goals seem to have been achieved or strived for in our current western societies?


I've been having a good debate with "Cug" as far as "real research" goes.

Ngydan-I'm not about to debate you on this one, as I have no real reason to think that what you're saying isn't true. (And also you're the moderator and I don't want to get in trouble.)

However, based on the conversations I've had with "Cug", can you provide anymore verification as to the source of the "inauthenticity" of the document in question?

Also, do you agree or disagree with what it says, the authenticity of the document itself notwithstanding?



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Originally posted by Nygdan

www.snopes.com...

It simply doesn't exist, anywhere. Its a fabrication.

Also, 1919, seems a little early for them to be using illuminati-esque world-take over schemes. Communist plots were more along the line of 'Light the fuse, throw the bomb into the market, and then wait for the proletariate to rise up against the bourgoise exploiters! *raises fist* "


Funny but the snopes site doesn't explain why the document is a fake so I'll take their well meaning assertions with a grain of salt.

Did you miss the part about it not ever evening being heard of before the post wwii period? That there's no record of it ever having been found by anyone, anywhere? Nor that the first mentions of it cite a specific newspaper, but there was never any such article in that paper?


All the same do you agree that any of the mentioned goals seem to have been achieved or strived for in our current western societies?

The point is, its not communists that are doing this, and that this list was manufactured by liars to smear people that they didn't like and appeal to irrational emotive responses from the public.

IOW, its an attempt at manipulation. Why just gloss over that??

The site that is supposed to have the list doesn't work

10 Planks within the Communist Manifesto
www.geocities.com...

  1. Abolition of private property and the 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. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly
  6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State
  7. Extention 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 liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
  10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.


I'm suspicious of this list too, as I can't seem to find any communist sites that outline the "10 Planks" of the Communist Manifesto. Communists aren't secretive about what they want. It seems like these are re-wordings of what might've been said in the book, perhaps distorted so as to make them fit into the intent of the author.

So what I'd like to see, is a more detailed explanation of where in the manifesto these items are. Presumably they're not present as a simple list either.

The site I got the list from states that marx was using them as a test of whether or not a country is communist, if it meets all 10 its, communist. Clearly, the US is not communist.There is still private property, for example. The idea that the Federal Reserve is some sort of government monopoly on all credit doesn't fly either. The 'means of communication' clearly aren't held by the state. Then it cites labour unions as meaning that labour in the US is 'equal' along communist lines.ANd there certianly hasn't been any 'abolition of the distinction between town and country'. As far as free public education, jebus, if that's communist, then paint me red and give me a hammer! The thing is, its NOT communist to have public education, communists have a state monopoly on education, you wouldn't be permited to have each state determine its own educational curriculation, largely based on what the local school districts and communities WANT to teach, nor be able to attend private schools, or be home schooled, or drop out of school. ANd as far as taxes being 'heavy', they're not, US taxes are lower than lots of other countries, and a progressive tax makes a helluva lot of sense. THis is nothing like in a communist system, heck, the idea of taxes upon labour wages doesn't really even make sense in a communist system.

Nope, the US is still capitalist, not communist.


And Just to be clear, I think communism is horrible, and should be erradicated. Slander and irrational emotive appeals to base instincts aint' a good thing either, and thats what these 'THe US is Communist! The US is nazi!" Arguments are all about.



And also you're the moderator and I don't want to get in trouble


Er? Why the heck would you get in trouble? As long as you aren't abusing other members and attacking them, etc etc.


Still scary if this kind of propaganda has surfaced 1946.

But the point is, its not from communists, its from fear mongers who want to provoke a reaction from a frightened public, project their fears onto a scapegoat/fake enemy (not that communists aren't dangerous, but they DIDN"T make that document), in order to manipulate them. In a sense, its actually doing the very thing that it is trying to get peopel in a panic about the communists doing!


Cug

posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

I'm suspicious of this list too, as I can't seem to find any communist sites that outline the "10 Planks" of the Communist Manifesto. Communists aren't secretive about what they want. It seems like these are re-wordings of what might've been said in the book, perhaps distorted so as to make them fit into the intent of the author.

So what I'd like to see, is a more detailed explanation of where in the manifesto these items are. Presumably they're not present as a simple list either.


Here is a text version of Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto www.gutenberg.org...

The list starts on line 969 near the end of Section II

The link that was posted had some Libertarian propaganda after each point comparing it to the present day. For example they equate the abolition of property with our property taxes.

NOTE I'm a registered Libertarian, but that doesn't mean I can't spot propaganda when I see it



Originally posted by Chezz
However, based on the conversations I've had with "Cug", can you provide anymore verification as to the source of the "inauthenticity" of the document in question?


Can you see the difference between snopes.com a site that has no agenda about the issue of the NWO, and generally considered a good site about hoaxes/urban legands vs a site that is promoting that there is a NWO? Or even a site promoting there is no NWO.

one of these things is not like the other

[edit on 4/29/2006 by Cug]



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Cug
 


The Great Betrayal of the British People Part 3 - The Fabian
We have since seen under Attley a Fabian, Harold Wilson a communist (from .... Our Queen is no longer head of this country, she is in fact just an illusion. ...
www.tpuc.org/node/62

Fabians are in power in the UK, Blair was the chairman of the Fabian society his new cabinet when they won the election was made up of young Fabians.
Fabians,Marxist,nazis,fascists communists all the same rolled into one with exactly united aims.
TPUC well worth reading every entry, John Harris has taken on the state and become a freeman. Many hope to follow his example!
VJ.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Nygdan
 


Not so fast there, Sparky ! I was taught the RRFR back in the mid 1970's in private school, as part of "Government" class. PLUS, I happen to have an actual page, right out of the AJC, dated 1939, entitled "Teachers Warned Of Reds' Objective", which I've kept since my granddad passed away in 1974. DON'T TELL ME IT'S A FAKE !!!!! This thing's been going on since the Bolshevik Revolution, which seemed to be a continuation of same.

So....if it's indeed a fake, as you're suggesting, then it's been a fake for quite a looooooooooong time.

DG



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I'd like to touch on at least one point the RRFR makes. Although I'm not for "getting them interested in sex, destroy their ruggedness", I AM for getting them away from religion. I've experienced nothing but hardships while being involved with "church", and I think it's high time we all came to the realization that religion, the definition of which comes from a French word (religare) meaning bondage, is bunk, and pure evil. So, if one signs-on to a religion, then they're signing-on to a system of effective slavery, IMHO. And that cannot be good.

To me, the phrase of "destroy their ruggedness" is iffy at best. Ruggedness is relative to the individual...oh, wait, we're not supposed to be individuals anymore, we're supposed to think GROUP all the time. That's why we're being told we HAVE TO attend church, where we're by-and-large TOLD what to think. I can't go for that...no can do.

To me, there's a delicate balance between individual and group, and that individuality should always be sovereign.

A political point here (and possible caveat): The republican (deliberate non-caps) "party" identifies with the color RED, and the Democrats blue. So...if colors still mean anything, then it is the R's that represent RRFR more closely, although there are many points the RRFR makes that I'd challenge, as time allows. But I don't see the thing as COMMUNIST, I see it as FASCISM. And I definitely see lots of fascism among the "right"...which they are not.

I also see where getting involved with education has been more of a right-wing thing, than communist. So-called "christians" (deliberate non-caps) have infiltrated the public education system, in order to bring it down from within, so they can say it capitulated "without firing a shot", although there have been plenty of those, haven't there ? These two-faced "people" will stop at nothing to ensure that all kids are taught in a religious environment, rather than plain-ol' secular. I say one should be in school when they're supposed to be in school, and if one wants to attend brainwashing (church), there's a time and place for that....but ne'er the twain shall meet in a public school.

DG



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by HardToGet
 


Frank Buchman, developer of what became the Oxford Group is also credited with being the 'father' of the international moral and spiritual movement Moral Re-Armament, and it was in that group's early 1946 publication of the same name where this manifesto seems to have originated. In 2001 the organization changed its name to Initiatives for Change. There's some interesting reading available here www.us.iofc.org...



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
intereting except those goals have nothing to do with communism.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Chezz
 


That is pretty amusing.

"Communist" parties are full of people seeking personal power.

Don't confuse "communist" political parties with actual communism. Communism was a working class movement for worker ownership, long before certain people used it to gain state power. Communism requires no political party, but they get all the attention.

That list would not have been written by a true communist. The goal of the true communist/socialist/anarchist is the free association of producers.


In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.


Free association (communism and anarchism)

The right wing establishment simply weakened working class power by appropriating left-wing terms, and using the USSR etc., to demonise left-wing ideology. Of course the USSR was never communist, it had a state-capitalist economy (private ownership of the means of production by members of the government). The Bolsheviks simply used Marxism to gain state power, they had no intention of implementing communism.

The real left-wing rose up against the Bolsheviks...


Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks were a series of rebellions and uprisings against the Bolsheviks led or supported by left wing groups including Socialist Revolutionaries, Left Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and anarchists. Some were in support of the White Movement while some tried to be an independent force. The uprisings started in 1918 and continued through the Russian Civil War and after until 1922. In response the Bolsheviks increasingly abandoned attempts to get these groups to join the government and suppressed them with force.


Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks

History has simply been written to support capitalism, state authority, and demonise any thoughts of worker ownership. You've been conditioned to believe capitalism is freedom simply because they lied about the alternatives. All the time the alternative is the real freedom, worker ownership, free association.

Private ownership of the means of production, by the state or by individuals, is the problem. What the state means by freedom is the freedom to use private property to exploit those who own no property. That is only freedom for the private owner, not liberty for all.

So I question the validity of that list being written by a true communist, it makes no sense. Found in Dusseldorf?
Could have been German propaganda, they hated and feared communists.



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
BTW the so called 'ten planks of communism' is BS.

The Commie Festo does not call it the 'ten planks' to start with, and secondly it is not the rules of communism.

The Festo was not an explanation of communism, from the back cover of my copy...

"Commissioned by the Communist League and written by communist theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, it laid out the League's purpose and program. It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms"

The so called ten planks is what is known as the transition period. It was supposed to be a temporary period of nationalism, (state ownership of the means of production), in a worker controlled state, that would be the transition period between capitalism and communism. Also known as the dictatorship of the proletariat, in opposition to the dictatorship of the bourgeois. It was a political path and the reason some socialists became anarchists in opposition to the political path, desiring instead direct action to bring about communism/socialism.

All working peoples hate of communism comes from misunderstandings, and misrepresentations, of what it actually is.

edit on 11/11/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
0

log in

join