Socialist I Am Calling You Out!

reply to post by endisnighe


Once again, your comment is right on the money endisnighe.

We already live in a socialist state.
The capstone to this Neuvo-American Socialism, which surrounds us, was officially laid in 1933 by FDR (a 33rd degree Freemason) when he set a standard for the price of gold, declared a bank holiday, set up the FDIC, actually forcefully confiscated everyone's gold, and then finally put to good use the progressive and un-apportioned redistribution of wealth via the 16th Amendment.

All of this "Obama is a socialist talk" is simply a distraction.
Of course he is socialist. DUH!!!!

Just like Bush 1, Bush 2, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Ford, and Johnson.

If one was to do some real research, then it would become painfully obvious that every president post 1868 was/is a socialist with the exception of 4 men.

1) Lincoln (this is debatable, but I do not count him as a socialist because he was adamantly opposed to a central bank, which is the hallmark of socialism/communism)
assassinated

2) Garfield (pushed heavily for the adoption of a precious metal, commodity based monetary standard as the major portion of his election platform)
assassinated

3) McKinley (pushed heavily for the adoption of a gold standard based monetary policy as the major portion of his election platform)
assassinated

4) JFKennedy (signed executive order 01111 that put billions of interest free money into circulation, all of which was backed by the nation's silver reserves)
assassinated

And just so that everyone knows....

The only president to ever truly bring our country out of debt (not just create a surplus, but truly rid the country of our national debt) EVER, was Andrew Jackson, who ran his platform on opposing yet another central bank.
He HATED bankers.
two assassination attempts
Both of which he survived because was the FN man.

Hmmmmmm.........

Seems to be a pattern here.

Our Dollars (Federal Reserve Notes) represent the debt that was bought by the International Banksters when our government was essentially deemed insolvent in 1933.
(It says so right on the money. Look at it)
The United States defaulted on its debt and declared bankruptcy in 1933.
Our US Federal Reserve Notes, or dollars, represent debt only.
We can NEVER become wealthy by using dollars.
And with our progressive, un-constitutional and un-apportioned income tax, these debt based dollars are simply redistributed so as to control who has access to what.

AKA... Socialism

It is already here folks, and it has been here for quite a while.

Just like martial law.

It is already here folks, and it has been here for quite a while.

This constant state of emergency under which ALL Americans live, or martial law, is the only reason that executive orders or signing statements are accepted as law without congressional or judicial review.
We have been under a state of military emergency since 1933.

Look at the flag at all government institutions.
It has Gold fringe. That is a military flag.
Once again. Look it up. Eisenhower declared it a military flag in 1950.

Also for all you NRA folks out there....

You do not have the right to bear arms under the incorporated rights of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Don't believe me?
Look it up. If you really want to save the country forget stocking up on ammo and start reading books on how the law works in this country.

Wake up and stop fear mongering about the sky falling tomorrow, because it already fell yesterday.

Now... the question becomes what do we do about it?

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by dalan.
reply to post by oozyism

 

Free market failed, no rules and regulations failed, now stop the wimping and crying.. Come up with something new.

These Unites States have never had a "free market."

Not when a private bank is the one setting up and controlling that market.

Modern Money Mechanics

ZZZ everyone is confused, everyone is talking about different free markets, different freedoms.. Same words with different definitions..

I guess that is how they keep us confused and lost, while they continue their dirty work..

Remember the definition of terrorist changed too, just like freedom, just like free market, balablablabla..

Now why is your definition of free market any more valid than anyone else?

Since it has changed so many times, it don't make sense any more, just like terrorism..

I think being confused is a way the lazy describe the pheromone, the fact that there are so many views is a great and natural occurrence. I see this almost the entirety if this ATS community completely ignore the fact that everyone is different. All the frustration come along because we CHOOSE to ignore the simple fact that everyone is unique, slight shaded with various tones of character and belief. Meanwhile we are on here
demonizing the fruits of reality itself by demanding that our individual opinion should be law of the land. What a completely futile and presuming thing our realities produce
with our political inklings. WE ALL HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON, in this thread, socialists, progressives, nomads, statist and libertarians alike, 100% certain.

NON OF US HAVE IT THE WAY WE WANT IT

We fight and build this hatred because we are all too small to accept the nature of reality.

I am personally getting tired of all the assertions, all sides... We are simply too small
to grasp all the variables and judge the nature of all problems accurately. Yet we each think the world should be embody what we believe.


I think there is a simple beauty that comes with America, it is an ever changing picture.

We allow for the pinnacles of excess and basic human altruism of man alike, this place has BOTH occurring at the same time. It is very natural state I believe, we as humans individuals place JUDGMENTS on upon these things and then an intellectual malay ensues. However somehow this disharmonious state
creates a sort harmony that we do not care to recognize. We eat, we love, we fight, we parent and we kill, all indicates that nature has a very broad range and our very society reflects this.

There is no ultimate truth, that truth is reserved for the the royalty of fools. While interesting enough, every single man seems to have share some trace of royal blood in various quantities. To deny our connection is foolish, to deny our individuality is no less an offense. We make the distinction, assign values to both
and pretend take the resulting quantity of our personal calculations are perfection.

For myself, I have realized I do not care to be miserable about the external calamity anymore. I will behave in a natural state as we all do naturally and things will change
with or without my force, will or presence in this world. Assigning force requires no less
or more force than restraining force, equal and opposite reaction we can apply to societal force. Then we have our personally microcosms which behave in the opposite way, very malleable and changeable, yet all things political is the humans failed attempt to put the same property to use in a different equation.

All of us need to communicate and not be angry or discounting of descending opinions,
all I see are a bunch of lines in the sand, what's the point in that? I don't know why I do it myself.

I more and more believe all those in their blind crusade against 'socialists' would rather live in an anarchy. They'd love to live in their little world, no tax, just what 'they earned' under the mattress and a few guns to protect it.
Fact is it doesn't work. There are a lot of public service people pay with tax money and that is mostly is a socialistic scheme. Because I don't think you alone can afford building roads to drive to your work place.
I think most have a burning hate for 'freeloaders'. To be honest, I too would like to see everyone contribute and make the efforts to better themselves but honestly, that is impossible. Mankind is too diverse and there will always be outsiders and leeches. I am okay paying tax so they can have a MINIMUM of living standards. Do you really want to live with hungry and desperate losers next door? You'd be only putting your family's life at risk. They have nothing to lose, you have.
So giving a minimum is certainly not the ugly thing so many are trying to portray.

Am I making sense?

Originally posted by hawkiye
I am sick and tired of all the socialist here showing thier utter ignorance and just parroting the crap they hear on the nightly news or read on some blog or website..

If socialism is so great then what do you have against making it all voluntary? Are you afraid that you won't be able to steal enough funds by force to support your pet social programs? Seriously if you all start promoting voluntarism I will have no problem with you. As long you you don't you are promoting theft under color of law.

And also quit blaming Capitalism for the failing economies for god sake do a little research. You all have been duped by the media. We haven't had any semblance of capitalism in over half a century. In fact what you call capitalism is in fact socialism/fascism! They have convinced you thier socialism that is failing big time is capitalism.

Most of you agree we live in a Socialist Democracy ( even if it is illegitimate) yet you somehow blame capitalism for the economic meltdown. This goes for other countries also. All those countries are socialist yet blame capitalism for thier demise... hello...!

Capitalism is free markets where people have a choice and government does not intervene to give anyone an unfair advantage under the guise of protecting the consumer. Markets regulate themselves by the quality and service they provide. If quality and service suck or are corrupt people take thier business elsewhere. The only way you can stay in business is to provide a quality product or service as opposed to the socialist government eliminating your competition through regulation and allowing you to stay in business when you should have failed. Like the Big financial institutions they bailed out.

Socialism/fascism is where government intervenes with all kinds of regulation claiming to be protecting consumers from unfair market practices when in fact they are really protecting markets for the politically connected Corps and elites. Like the banks for instance they have a monopoly on the currency and finance. Which is why the economy is melting down. Try to start a bank and you have to jump through hoops and get all kinds of licenses etc. and agree to all thier rules and regulations via the Federal Reserve Bank. So there is no fair competition.

So can we discuss this in a meaningful way or will this just turn into another left vs right ignorance fest?

Terribly sorry I haven't been on here much these past few days, it's been election time and that's all-hands-on-deck for journalists. Being a socialist though, I will endeavor to answer your points:

First off, I never advocate forcing socialism down any nation's throat. In order to become a socialist nation, elect socialists. If you live in a socialist nation and do not like the leadership, vote them out. It's as simple as that. I never advocate any kind of government to be put into place through revolutions. Those are last-resort options for overthrowing dangerous governments, not for instituting political change that the majority do not want.

That said I do believe that the individual citizen is not exempt from rules or regulations simply for the fact that they did not vote for a candidate or disagree with a political stance. Passive and active resistance to law are also reserved for special circumstances.

I do not blame capitalism as a whole for the current economic problems throughout the world, I blame deregulation of banks and the housing market in the United States for that. It was not free-market capitalism itself, but it was a freeing of the markets that resulted in the bubble and consequential crash.

Your view of economics is simplistic and idealistic. That's not a cut against you personally at all, just my observation. If a capitalistic system worked the way you describe, I would be all for it. However you fail to take into account that human beings step on each other to get ahead. This leads to all kinds of problems, like the ones that brought about the current crisis.

I have no problem with private industry, almost every single thing I purchase comes from private industry. Private industry though must be seen, in my opinion, for what it is though. The goal of a good corporation is to make a profit. I have an investment portfolio and I would never invest in a company where that was not their goal. The public interest, environment, and general welfare of humanity are not primary goals of private industry. This coupled with the tendency of people to exploit or swindle one another are the reasons, I believe, government must regulate private industry.

It is absolutely true that socialism can eliminate the open competition that capitalism requires, but it should be applied judiciously. British Rail was a great thing British Leyland was a horrible debacle. There are no hard fast rules regarding nationalization that work every time, in every country, ever. Things must be taken on a case-by-case basis and experts must have a say in the matter. I do not ever want to see a government simply nationalizing everything it can without thought, that leads to collapse.

I will say OP, your equating socialism with fascism is insulting to the people of the United Kingdom, we are socialists and our greatest hour was fighting fascism, we know there is a huge difference.

I believe in democracies and republics. In fact I believe they are the only system of government that can bring liberty and I would never wish to live in anything else. Socialism needs to be a democratic selection not forced on anyone.

reply to post by oozyism

ZZZ everyone is confused, everyone is talking about different free markets, different freedoms.. Same words with different definitions.. I guess that is how they keep us confused and lost, while they continue their dirty work.. Remember the definition of terrorist changed too, just like freedom, just like free market, balablablabla.. Now why is your definition of free market any more valid than anyone else? Since it has changed so many times, it don't make sense any more, just like terrorism..

There is only one definition of free markets. That is they are free of government intervention, and people are free to choose period. Just because people want to try and redefine the term to bolster thier false argument does not make it true. And as you point out that happens a lot.


[edit on 8-5-2010 by hawkiye]

reply to post by TheOracle

Am I making sense?

None whatsoever!

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


That spiel was almost funny. Almost.

So socialism for the benefit of banks and corporations is what the people voted for?

The humor.

In the US, all income taxes go directly to the Federal Reserve. Directly, it does not and has not gone for any socialistic endeavors since the inception of the 16th amendment was passed.

The ignorance of people on how things REALLY operate, is almost laughable. That college in Madison must have really been good at it's job of disinformation.

Socialism, cronie capitalism, communism are all just ways to CONTROL the citizenry. Period.

As for you stating that deregulation of banks was the cause of the housing market debacle is an outright LIE. Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Forced DEBT to people that cannot afford the DEBT (mortgages) is not capitalism. It is attempted socialistic endeavors. Forcing banks to loan to people that cannot afford the debt is NOT DEREGULATION.

Repeat the lie enough times and the people begin to believe it. Is that what they teach in journalism schools or college now?

Originally posted by TheOracle
I more and more believe all those in their blind crusade against 'socialists' would rather live in an anarchy. They'd love to live in their little world, no tax, just what 'they earned' under the mattress and a few guns to protect it.
Fact is it doesn't work. There are a lot of public service people pay with tax money and that is mostly is a socialistic scheme. Because I don't think you alone can afford building roads to drive to your work place.
I think most have a burning hate for 'freeloaders'. To be honest, I too would like to see everyone contribute and make the efforts to better themselves but honestly, that is impossible. Mankind is too diverse and there will always be outsiders and leeches. I am okay paying tax so they can have a MINIMUM of living standards. Do you really want to live with hungry and desperate losers next door? You'd be only putting your family's life at risk. They have nothing to lose, you have.
So giving a minimum is certainly not the ugly thing so many are trying to portray.

Am I making sense?

Well I think the point is, there are people out there that have contrary ideas to yours.
In the end introducing one or the other tyrannizes someone's concept of reality.
I can see the merit in your evaluation, but that does not mean others will.
I personally do not feel tyrannized by anything but my self, people fly and flop
in every sort of manner possible so I accept that both will be represented and addressed in society. However I cannot blame or fault others for wanting a different
system, this embodies natural freedom that we all possess.

You put ten of us in a space ship I suggest the only way we survive is if we cooperate
and allow for individual sovereignty at the same time. We stop cooperating we starve,
we mandate everything we murder eachother. Or the spectrum of possible demises when we remove one aspect and enforce the other. The resulting process of both is not robotic and no always smooth but it achieves the goal of life and some common form of prosperity, not bad in my book. We will jockey for these concepts until the last of two men breaths their last breath. That last person will be completely free and completely alone...

reply to post by Josephus23


Lincoln was a socialist because he subjugated the south's resources by force like all good socialist. Te was more on the Fascist end of the spectrum though but they are two side to the same coin. He was a turning point in our history trampling the bill of rights and setting the prototype for what we have today.

I have to disagree with you that studying the law will save this country. I have been studying it for over 20 years and trying to defend myself from the corporatist in their rogue courts and administrations and know others who do the same some for over 30 years and it has done little if any good. These folks rule by the point of a gun period. And the only chance to fix things will be a complete melt down and rebuild. You can't put new tires on the old clunker with the blown motor and expect it to run.

The only way to deal with thieves, robbers, and murders is to treat then like the heinous criminals they are. I hate to say it and I didn't want to believe it myself and spent decades trying to avoid it and work through law. But you cannot use law when they do not respect and obey the law.

Frankly I am extremely tired and find myself hoping for complete collapse to get it over with. I know I'll regret it when it happens but it is the only way it will ever have a chance to be fixed.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

That spiel was almost funny. Almost.

So socialism for the benefit of banks and corporations is what the people voted for?

The humor.

In the US, all income taxes go directly to the Federal Reserve. Directly, it does not and has not gone for any socialistic endeavors since the inception of the 16th amendment was passed.

The ignorance of people on how things REALLY operate, is almost laughable. That college in Madison must have really been good at it's job of disinformation.

Socialism, cronie capitalism, communism are all just ways to CONTROL the citizenry. Period.

As for you stating that deregulation of banks was the cause of the housing market debacle is an outright LIE. Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Forced DEBT to people that cannot afford the DEBT (mortgages) is not capitalism. It is attempted socialistic endeavors. Forcing banks to loan to people that cannot afford the debt is NOT DEREGULATION.

Repeat the lie enough times and the people begin to believe it. Is that what they teach in journalism schools or college now?

Well he believes it END

and you believe your stuff

you both have to live here

And Jimmy, same goes for you

We are trying to account for the whims of 5 billions people, might as well smell the roses, the anger achieves nothing but anger...

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

That spiel was almost funny. Almost.

So socialism for the benefit of banks and corporations is what the people voted for?

The humor.

In the US, all income taxes go directly to the Federal Reserve. Directly, it does not and has not gone for any socialistic endeavors since the inception of the 16th amendment was passed.

The ignorance of people on how things REALLY operate, is almost laughable. That college in Madison must have really been good at it's job of disinformation.

Socialism, cronie capitalism, communism are all just ways to CONTROL the citizenry. Period.

As for you stating that deregulation of banks was the cause of the housing market debacle is an outright LIE. Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Forced DEBT to people that cannot afford the DEBT (mortgages) is not capitalism. It is attempted socialistic endeavors. Forcing banks to loan to people that cannot afford the debt is NOT DEREGULATION.

Repeat the lie enough times and the people begin to believe it. Is that what they teach in journalism schools or college now?

I agree accept one thing. The banks do not loan money. They do not have any money to loan. That is the big lie. The truth is THEY CREATE MONEY ON YOUR SIGNATURE, there is no money, you are loaning the bank your credit and they are making millions on it and charging you for the privilege of loaning your credit to them. What caused the collapse is over inflation of the money supply. It had nothing to do with people not being able to afford the fake debt. think about every time some one signs a promissory note the bank monetizes it. IWO the create money out of thin air based on the note and then fractionalize it. there is no money sitting in an account somewhere they give to you. You sign for 100 thousand and you just gave the bank 900 thousand in credit to play with. This is why the real estate market deflated so quick and stiill is.

Read Money Mechanics or any of Tom Shaufs books and you will understand

Originally posted by hockeye
reply to post by Josephus23

 

Frankly I am extremely tired and find myself hoping for complete collapse to get it over with. I know I'll regret it when it happens but it is the only way it will ever have a chance to be fixed.

I sometimes think about collapse...

entertain this;

After the collapse, the same forces will pick up right were they left off, all comprised of
people, their views, opinions and will.

Eventually the same thing will sprout up, you will fight it, it will fight you...

You make a move they make a move-

I suggest the only physical way to prevent this process from starting is thru force, suppression or murder. Otherwise mothers all around the world will continue to
give birth to children with socialists minds and they WILL attempt to divert your will
and desires once again, without fail. I wonder why you think this new attempt would impact mother nature and produce what you want? I am not being a prick, I am wanting to understand your logic, I want to compare it to my past musings on the idea of collapse. Or better yet what would prevent this same cycle and result from playing out? I cannot answer that myself without enforcing my will upon others...

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

I agree accept one thing. The banks do not loan money. They do not have any money to loan. That is the big lie. The truth is THEY CREATE MONEY ON YOUR SIGNATURE, there is no money, you are loaning the bank your credit and they are making millions on it and charging you for the privilege of loaning your credit to them. What caused the collapse is over inflation of the money supply. It had nothing to do with people not being able to afford the fake debt. think about every time some one signs a promissory note the bank monetizes it. IWO the create money out of thin air based on the note and then fractionalize it. there is no money sitting in an account somewhere they give to you. You sign for 100 thousand and you just gave the bank 900 thousand in credit to play with. This is why the real estate market deflated so quick and stiill is.

I completely agree regarding the validity of this statement

Unfortunately the whole damn world seems to be practicing this
I don't know how the United States could effectively change this
and maintain its current system of investment.

reply to post by hawkiye


While I do tend to agree with you on one aspect...
That my idea of a citizenry learning the laws to overturn the system is more of a pipe dream than a probability; however, it could work.

And I will tell right now exactly how it could work, and it only takes two words. (in two different sets)

The first two words are:

1) JURY NULLIFICATION

And the second two words that not only can, but will save America are:

2) NOT GUILTY.

Cheers. Thanks for the reply.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by hawkiye

 

While I do tend to agree with you on one aspect...
That my idea of a citizenry learning the laws to overturn the system is more of a pipe dream than a probability; however, it could work.

And I will tell right now exactly how it could work, and it only takes two words. (in two different sets)

The first two words are:

1) JURY NULLIFICATION

And the second two words that not only can, but will save America are:

2) NOT GUILTY.

Cheers. Thanks for the reply.

I am taking this as literal

who's going to render that verdict -

And wouldn't that take away any incentive to behave in a civilized manner?

What would be the purpose of employment when violence could achieve more fruitful
results?

This would not apply to me, but i would prove to be the option of choice for many.

reply to post by Janky Red


I don't think Josephus is advocating defying Natural Law, but is relying on it. If legislation is repugnant to the Constitution, or state constitution, then it is not law, and as such, one need not wait for a judge to strike the law down as unconstitutional and can rely upon a jury of their peers to refuse to convict in the absence of a victim. I can't speak for Josephus, but this was my take on his suggestion.

reply to post by Janky Red


We, as citizens, have final veto power over all laws.

Not one single person can go to jail unless a jury of their peers deem it so.

Jury Nullification is the common law right of the juror to judge the LAW as well as the PERSON.

You see... Judges play this little sneaky game with jurors by making them take an oath, but taking an oath to be on a jury is LUDICROUS.

A juror can vote however they wish and they CAN NOT be held accountable for their vote....
So.... What in the world is this "oath" for, other than to try and convince a juror that they have a duty to uphold laws that they do not have a duty to uphold.

We also have the power to bring lawsuits against any other enemies foreign and domestic and these lawsuits are judged by, once again, a jury of citizens.
But the people of this country have been so inundated with propaganda that we have forgotten that we have more power as jurors than any other office or individual in this entire republic.

Remember, it only takes ONE to hang a jury.

I am telling you, and I know that it is hard to believe, but the founding fathers put the concept of Jury Nullification into our system of common law as a final protection against tyranny.

Too bad nobody has one iota of a clue how powerful a jury vote is.

[edit on 5/8/2010 by Josephus23]

reply to post by Janky Red


I am not saying it will fix it I am only saying it is the best chance. There is no guarantee but the model is the founding of this country. If enough honest hard working people survive they will naturally gravitate to an honest society. Doesn't mean it will be perfect.

I agree with Thomas Paine's views on society: Society is a Blessing, but Government is Evil



[edit on 8-5-2010 by hawkiye]

reply to post by hawkiye

There is only one definition of free markets. That is they are free of government intervention, and people are free to choose period. Just because people want to try and redefine the term to bolster thier false argument does not make it true. And as you point out that happens a lot

Free market means free to choose? But no one is free to choose, you can't choose to invest in torturing innocent people.. That being said, it is regulated, always was regulated, and will always be regulated..

You can't have a free market without government intervention.. because that would create chaos.. Government will always be there to govern, it has one job to do, and if it doesn't do it, it might as well not exist..

They are to govern every aspect of the country, where governance is needed.. That includes the market..

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Janky Red

 

I don't think Josephus is advocating defying Natural Law, but is relying on it. If legislation is repugnant to the Constitution, or state constitution, then it is not law, and as such, one need not wait for a judge to strike the law down as unconstitutional and can rely upon a jury of their peers to refuse to convict in the absence of a victim. I can't speak for Josephus, but this was my take on his suggestion.

I am just trying to get the party started in here... My only goal is to get a better sense of others by challenging a portion of their logic in hopes that they will explain it to me,
which will ultimately provide a larger arena of considerations and assist in my understanding.