Freemasonry: a Cult of Neofascist, Militant, Genocidal, Capitalists and anti-Communists.

ultimately it is desire of any type that will keep man from evolution of the consciousness, because of your view's to act any pleasure as you please because you think it's natural is exactly why communism will never work, because people will always desire more then they need

Originally posted by Christophorus0
ultimately it is desire of any type that will keep man from evolution of the consciousness,

Well you have just restated essentially the point you have alreadly made, and rather than endlessly restating myself, let me just repeat my previous statement:

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Originally posted by Christophorus0
a communist like society, can only work, if humans deprogrammed the ego structure, and rid themselves of all carnal desire's.

Certainly a Communist society could only produce a more perfect society if all persons in that society were ideologically Communist and had socialist values, however this has nothing to do with ridding onseself of "carnal ("1. Relating to the physical and especially sexual appetites: carnal desire. 2. Worldly or earthly; temporal: the carnal world. 3. Of or relating to the body or flesh; bodily:") desires."

This Gnostic idea that your body is somehow evil, and that persons who are human-hating and "human-nature-hating" are somehow "holy" is an utterly diabolical idea, and it is an important aspect of religious hypnosis and indoctrination; it produces a person who considers human nature (and indeed even the nature of the animal kingdom) to be somehow "evil;" such "Gnostics" would have to be purged from the world in order to create heaven on earth; thus the eradication of such human-nature-hating religious fanatics is essential to Communist revolution, for the terms "Communism (lit., to share)" has both economic and erotic implications .

We are "carnal" beings; this should not be confused with the selfishness of an economic slavemaster, a football hooligan, a tyrant or a playground bully however; we are ultimately all "social" creatures and seek to love and to be loved, and to live harmoniously in a society with other persons, and whose who reject such socialist principles and attitudes would tend to become either "outcasts" or "tyrants" and neither should be tolerated in a socialist society.

In the carnal sense we are all ultimately sexual communists (polyamorists) and happiness is not found by restricting natural desires, but by fullflling them, and this is the general ethos of the modern sexual revolution, which is awakening humnkind from Aeons of sex-slavery (including marriage) and misery.

Lux

The idea that, as your state, "ultimately it is desire of any type that will keep man from evolution of the consciousness," indicates to me that you are suffering from the effects of some form of religious hypnosis and indoctrination; this does not necessarily mean that you are a member of a religious cult, since Gnosticism is more than just a variety of exploitative Capitalist religious cults, it is a diabolical "philosophy" which is at the heart of Catholicism and most religions. It is simply a philosophy which breeds self-loathing and loathing of others.

Your desires to eat, sleep, provide shelter, your erotic desires, your desire to reproduce, to socialise, to love and to be loved are all perfectly natural; it is simply the way your mind in programmed, and if you repress such desires, you will simply turn into a wretched, self-hating and very miserable person; you will simply become another lost religious fanatic who despises human nature; it is an entirely diabolical, blasphemous and heretical perspective; it is a blasphemy and heresy against the gods and goddesses of nature (i.e., human beings) and against Mother Nature Herself.

On the Five Techniques of the Enslavement of Humankind.

OSHO





Sex is the most powerful instinct in man. The politician and the priest have understood from the very beginning that sex is the most driving energy in man. It has to be curtailed, it has to be cut. If man is allowed total Freedom in sex, then there will be no possibility to dominate him. To make a slave out of him will be impossible.

Have you not seen it being done? When you want a bull to be yoked to a cart, what do you do? You castrate him, you destroy his sex energy. And have you seen the difference between a bull and an ox? What a difference! An ox is a poor phenomenon, a slave. A bull is a beauty; a bull is a glorious phenomenon, a great splendour. See a bull walking, how he walks like an emperor! And see an ox pulling a cart.

The same has been done to man. The sex instinct has been curtailed, cut, crippled. Man does not exist as the bull now, he exists like the ox, and each man is pulling a thousand and one carts. Look and you will find behind you a thousand and one carts, and you are yoked to them.

Why can’t you yoke a bull? The bull is too powerful. If he sees a cow passing by, he will throw both you and the cart, and he will move to the cow! He will not bother a bit about who you are, and he will not listen. It will be impossible to control the bull. Sex energy is life energy; it is uncontrollable. And the politician and the priest are not interested in you, they are interested in channelling your energy into other directions. So there is a certain Mechanism behind it--it has to be understood.

Sex repression, tabooing sex, is the very foundation of human slavery. Man cannot be free unless sex is free. Man cannot be really free unless his sex energy is allowed natural growth.

These are the five tricks through which man has been turned into a slave, into an ugly phenomenon, a cripple.

The first is:
Keep man as weak as possible if you want to dominate him. If the priest wants to dominate you or the politician wants to dominate you, you have to be kept as weak as possible. And the best way to keep a man weak is not to give love total freedom. Love is nourishment..."

"...Second:
Keep man as ignorant and deluded as possible so that he can easily be deceived..."

"...The third secret:
Keep man as frightened as possible. And the sure way is not to allow him love, because love destroys fear--’love casteth out fear.’ When you are not in love you become more interested in security, in safety. When you are in love you are more interested in adventure, in exploration...."

"...The Fourth:
Keep man as miserable as possible--because a miserable man is confused, a miserable man has no self-worth, a miserable man is self-condemnatory, a miserable man feels that he must have done something wrong. A miserable man has no grounding--you can push him from here and there, he can be turned into driftwood very easily. And a miserable man is always ready to be commanded, to be ordered, to be disciplined, because he knows ’On my own I am simply miserable. Maybe somebody else can discipline my life.’ He is a ready victim."

"And the fifth:
Keep men as alienated from each other as possible, so that they cannot band together for some purpose of which the priest and the politician may not approve. Keep people separate from each other. Don’t allow them too much intimacy. When people are separate, lonely, alienated from each other, they cannot band together. And there are a thousand and one tricks to keep them apart.

For example, if you are holding the hand of a man--you are a man and you are holding the hand of a man and walking down the road, singing--you will feel guilty because people will start looking at you. Are you gay, homosexual or something? Two men are not allowed to be happy together. They are condemned as homosexuals. Fear arises. If your friend comes and takes your hand in his hand, you look around: ’Is somebody looking or not?’ And you are just in a hurry to drop the hand..."

Often to awaken a person from the effects of religious hypnosis and indoctrination it is necessary to appear to be very harsh, sternly judgemental and unforgiving with them, but unfortunately it is often necessary to be cruel to be kind; for often I have found that once the victim of religious hypnosis and indoctrination awakens, they go off and devote their lives to awakening myriads of others and become the most ardent opponents of the most diabolical memetic virus which afflicts humanking; that of the disease of religion. Unfortunately there will always be those who are unable to awaken and who are totally beyond slavation (from the effects of religious hypnosis and indoctrination); "one shall be taken and one shall be left behind," is a useful analogy. In addition to "awakenng" the hypnotised and indoctrinated the "Vanguard of Revolution" are also engaged in a form of psychological warfare against the professional hypnotists of organsed religion and against those who use such techniques simply for their own vanity and ego.

" The criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism..." Marx

Once the mind is freed from religious hypnosis and indoctrination the next stage is to free the mind from political hypnosis and indoctrination where the most common memetic virus is "ideological Capitalism," but that is another story and another essay.

because of your view's to act any pleasure as you please because you think it's natural is exactly why communism will never work, because people will always desire more then they need

Generally a "mother" is a natural and intuitive Communist; all good mothers will scold children who are selfish and who seek to have more resources than they need, and who refuse to share their toys, food (etc) with their brothers and sisters; this is human nature, and it is human nature to despise and chasten such selfish individuals; as children we forgive them and nurture them, but when such a person becomes an adult and retains such selfishness, in a tribalistic or Communist society, they are generally despised and become outcastes. We are social creatures, and to fit into a progressive sharing society of adults, we are generally only loved, assisted and respected by loving, assisting and respecting others

However...... we do not live in a primitivistic tribalistic or advnaced collectivist society; we live in Capitalism, and Capitalist society indoctrinates it's citizens in the philosophy of selfishness, where a purpose is the accumulation of Capital and an abundance of wealth, irrespective of whether your surrounding society is wallowing in an ocean of poverty. Thus when you claim "people will always desire more than they need" your phrasing is such that you give the impression that you are speaking of a naturalistic truthism, but in fact you are only expressing the opinion of a person who has been conditioned and indoctrinated by Capitalist ideology.

Lux

reply to post by Lucifer777


You understand my point about the (MIC) Military–industrial complex and seem to understand what i consider real true capitalism but were your wrong is that i would have no problems with the Freemasons on a masonic level because i'm not a mason, i'm againts secret societies of any kind even tho i'm friends with some masons on here...


The reason true capitalism trumps true communism is because in theory true capitalism gives everyone a chance in life from freedom to monetary gains it's a more equal system with true communism you give up to many rights and in the end you only end up working for the man I.E the dictator running the system and he essentially decides how your life should be run, and no single man should ever have that kind of power you always end up with Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan ect ect ect ect and i could go on with the ect for ever on that one....

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Well you have just restated essentially the point you have alreadly made, and rather than endlessly restating myself,

Oh, that is rich. I guess the UK people are blessed with amazing humor as well as their amazing intelligence.
I think this may be one of the few posts where you have not repeated yourself over, and over, and over, and over again.

Originally posted by King Seesar
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

You understand my point about the (MIC) Military–industrial complex and seem to understand what i consider real true capitalism but were your wrong is that i would have no problems with the Freemasons on a masonic level because i'm not a mason, i'm againts secret societies of any kind even tho i'm friends with some masons on here.

.

My apologies; I misunderstood you; I took you for one of the gang of Masonic cultists here.

The reason true capitalism trumps true communism is because in theory true capitalism gives everyone a chance in life from freedom to monetary gains it's a more equal system with true communism you give up to many rights and in the end you only end up working for the man I.E the dictator running the system and he essentially decides how your life should be run, and no single man should ever have that kind of power you always end up with Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan ect ect ect ect and i could go on with the ect for ever on that one....

On the various Capitalist and Communist Ideologies."



OK. Well first of all whenever a person refers to "true Capitalism" or "true Communism" they are generally referring to some kind of utopian vision in their mind; however "political philosophy" is generally the field of study where we try to study all manner of political philosophies and work out an ideal and just (or unjust) solution which accords with human nature and which would create economic heaven (or Hell) on earth, or systems to our own personal advantage or the collective advantage of all humankind.

I do understand that not all ideological Capitalists are simply "gangsters" who wish to have a system where they can accumulate as much wealth as possible at the expense of everyone else; however I would argue that the current defenders of the "International Dictatorship of Capitalism" are essentially genocidal "gangster Capitalists," and that there are numerous other ideological Capitalists of the Alex Jones and Ron Paul ilk, who are much more idealistic and essentially democratic Republicans. By Democratic Republics, I refer to a government which is an elected Republic, and not to the current manifesto of the American "Republican Party," who are mostly Neo-Conservatives with a few exceptions and are essentially the servants of corporations who donate funds to them and to the real rulers of American, the economic and military elites whom the government has no power over and is subservient to; Ron Paul being the notable exception.

Fabianism and European Socialism.

The Fabians are essentially not "revolutionary socialists" but have a strategy which is more in common with the original Bavarian Illuminists; their society is named after the Roman dictator general Fabius, whose despite being a religious fanatic, is accredited with a specific military strategy, which was to try to avoid direct conforntation, and to wear down his opponents by a long sustained effort, including "scorched earth policy" which deprived them of food; essentially Fabianism is about evolutionary socialism over many years and decades; Trotsky described Fabianism as an attempt to save the Capitalist classes, but there are progressive aspects of Fabianism also; it is of course “Satanism” to many American Capitalists, and in particular to the Christian religious fanatics.

Frankly, a "pure Capitalist" society would not be beneficial for the vast majority of the population; in every Capitalist society there will always be those who are too sick to work, too old to work, too young to work, or who cannot find work. We are not animals who just allow natural selection to do it's job in killing off the weakest elements. Thus the European Socialist agenda includes public housing, public healthcare, public welfare and insures that all persons have at least their basic needs met. This creates a more civilised and humane society than "pure Capitalism," or “American Capitalism.”

Pure Capitalism. Libertarian Capitalism and Anarcho-Capitalism



You would really have to define what you mean by “pure Capitalism”, but the most radical forms of Capitalism are libertarian Capitalism, where there is very limited government and Anarcho-Capitalism, where there is no government whatsover other than the Capitalist Archons; the latter is the ideal system for all ganster Capitalists and organised Capitalist gangs, since they would employ the police as their private armies. Essentially modern day Russia is a good example of libertarian Capitalism; the Russian government does not have any incentive to eradicate organised crime because the Russian government "is" essentially an organised crime government. Almost all the major banks are run by the Russian Mafia, as are numerous major corporations and the Mafia don't have a problem with the police, since they virtually own the police, and they have their own private armies which can dispose of dissenters and journalists who make trouble for them. It is just another version of economic hell on earth ruled by gangster Capitalists, private banking cabals, pimps, arm's manufacturers and drugs dealers; meanwhile most of the population lives in poverty and in fear of the major gangster Capitalists. The Anarcho-Capitalist model is very similar; essentially there would be no no such a thing as “public services,” public hospitals, and no roads or bridges or infrastructure would be maintained by the government; they would all be private businesses. In an Anarcho-Capitalist society there would be no governments issuing "banking lisences" and anyone could issue paper money; it would simply be a mess and the paper money issued by the wealthiest ganster Capitalists would probably become the most exchangable currency.

Anarchist Communism

This is quite a rigidly defined political philosophy and I will not elaborate, however I believe that this is a "future model;" I simply cannot foresee a "revolutionary" transition from gangster Capitalism to stateless Communist collectivism; thus in the meantime Socialist governments form an interim type of system somewhere between Capitalism and Communism, and where "some" of the policies of Marx and Engels temporal "Communist Party Manifesto" have been initiated, however unfortunately in Europe we are sliding backwards into more of a pure Capitalist model.

Dictatorship, Proletarian Dictatorship and Democratic Republicanism.

Despite the various forms of Communist dictatorship of the 20th century the vast majority of the European Left are Democratic Republicans. The idea of a "Proletarian Dictatorship" is not about the dictatorship of one person. Really the vast majority of all populations “are” the proletariat; those who are not "economic elites" in essence.

One would think that in any election, it would always be the proletariat who would elect those who would best serve their interests; unfortunately the Capitalist elites also recognise this and over decades the mass media has come to be owned by such elites; in an election it is usually always between two candidates and the generally depoliticised masses are influenced by millions of dollars of advertising and by professional campaigners, while the real Socialist Left do not have access to the budgets of the major establishment political parties.

I ran in the general election of 2001 in Brixton/ Lambeth in London as an independent Communist and between the SA (Socialist Alliance) and myself we got a tiny proportion of the vote; we were virtually ignored by the mass media and we had relatively tiny budgets. This is the problem with the two party system and the mass media attention given to establishment parties, and the massive funding by major Capitalists to ensure that those who represent their interests stay in power. Similarly in the US, I doubt that most Americans really understood the manifesto of progressive Capitalists such as Ron Paul, and frankly were he to have been able to attempt to nationalise the issue of currency, I suspect the would be assassinated or have had an “accident,” as the politicians in Washington are merely the puppets of much more powerful organised crime gangs who constitute the Capitalist elites.

State Capitalism, America, Derivatives and Modern Banking.

State Capitalism involves the nationalisation of the money supply and all forms of money creation; I think that in the model suggested by many Capitalist reformers there would still perhaps be private banks, but they would not be able to practice reserve banking or to "create money;" they would simply have to borrow at one rate and lend at another; however this is not quite the same as "State Capitalism" as the Neomarxists and Trotskyists understand the term, where there would be no private banks whatsoever.



Unfortunately what is now included in the term "banking" is essentially the sale of derivatives contracts, which is simply "gambling." With global GDP at around $80 trillion and the value of all derivatives contracts at around $1.6 thousand trillion; 95% of Capitalism is now "gambling." So most of the world is relatively impoverished while a few economic elites spend their time gambling on currency and commodity futures. Unfortunately the most successful gamblers in this business are not "guessing," or "predicting" future trends, they are manipulating markets; if millions starve because the price of an agricultural commodity doubles, due to artificially created shortages, and the bankers can make billions predicting the shortage they created, then that is all part of the Capitalist game. In an Anyn Rand “laissez faire (anything goes)” libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist model driven by free market forces, this would continue and the vast majority of the Capitalist economy would be taken over by a few gamblers.

"Pure Capitalism as gangster Capitalism"

Ultimately "pure Capitalism" is "lassie faire” Capitalism where society would be driven by the unrestrained greed of gangster Capitalists.

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

Neom Chomsky

The future world will have to be socialist; whether by Revolutionary Socialism or Evolutionary Socialism, and both models used simultaneously, in response to different circumstances are preferable. The creation of economic heaven on earth cannot be manifested overnight; it will take decades and perhaps even centuries, and the human sacrifice of the blood of martyrs, tyrants and economic slave masters will be demanded.

There are billion people on this planet; they are mostly the "proletariat;" either they inherit the earth, or a few cabals of gangster Capitalists and bankers will. The Capitalists are genocidal, militant, imperialistic and are waging "an ends justifies the means" war for global conquest and the enslavement of humankind under the dictatorship of Capital. They seem to be winning at the moment, but they have millions of equally militant and potentially genocidal enemies. Future wars will most certainly be decided by military technologies such as DEW (Direct Energy) weapons which the Cubans and Chinese are also working on and which are technologically quite simple and reproducible; technology which will most likely give no advantage to large armies, nor to the military elites in their underground bunkers. In time, the talking will cease and global apocalyptic war shall begin.

If the “pacifists” can come up with a solution to eradicate the armies and allies of the “International Dictatorship of Capitalism” and the Anglo-American Imperialist state terrorists and narco-terrorists, they have a limited time in which do so, however I know of no such practical solution.

Words are Weapons. Physics is War. Propaganda is the First Stage of War.

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Lucifer

The Final Revolutionary War of Economic Salvation..
Armageddon, swords to ploughshares and the 1000 Year Revolution of Light.



More on: "What Is Communist Anarchism?, Alexander Berkman (1929) on: dwardmac.pitzer.edu...

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Well you have just restated essentially the point you have alreadly made, and rather than endlessly restating myself,

Oh, that is rich. I guess the UK people are blessed with amazing humor as well as their amazing intelligence.
I think this may be one of the few posts where you have not repeated yourself over, and over, and over, and over again.

You're right about us UK people being blessed with amazing humour as well as amazing intelligence... Unfortunately Lucifer is the exception to the rule!

reply to post by Lucifer777

Freemasonry is a bad wound on the body of French communism. It should be burned with a hot iron.
-----Leon Trotsky

Communist leaders were always against freemasonry and other secret societies right from the inception of communism. They expressed their anger and sadness towards infiltration of elements of freemasonry in the communist movement.

en.internationalism.org...

Marx exposed the secret collaboration of the British and Russian cabinets since the time of Peter the Great. In his writings against Lord Palmerston, Marx revealed that the continuation of this secret alliance was directed essentially against revolutionary movements throughout Europe. In fact, during the first sixty years of the 19th century, Russian diplomacy, the bastion of counter-revolution at that time, was involved in "all the conspiracies and uprisings" of the day, including the insurrectional secret societies such as the Carbonari, trying to manipulate them to its own ends (Engels: The Foreign Policy of Czarist Russia).

In 1922, in response to the French Communist Party's infiltration by elements belonging to freemasonry, who had gangrened the party since its foundation at the Tours Congress, the 4th Congress of the Communist International, in its "Resolution on the French question", reaffirmed class principles in the following terms:

"The incompatibility between freemasonry and socialism was considered to be evident in most of the parties of the Second International (...) If the Second Congress of the Communist International, in its conditions for joining the International, did not formulate a special point on the incompatibility between communism and freemasonry, it was because this principle found its place in a separate resolution unanimously voted by the Congress."

The fact, unexpectedly revealed at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, that a considerable number of French communists belong to masonic lodges is, in the eyes of the Communist International, the most clear and at the same time the most pitiful proof that our French Party has conserved not only the psychological heritage of the epoch of reformism, of parliamentarism and patriotism, but also liaisons that are very concrete, very compromising for the leadership of the party, with the secret, political and careerist organisations of the radical bourgeoisie.

The goal of freemasonry has always been to infiltrate any movement that is against capitalism and its cruelties, because economic class system is what masonic bankers want.

"the Jewish Freemason pyramid controls 80% of the economy of the capitalist countries and 90-95 per cent of the information media." ---- Professor Valeri Yemelyanov.

Communism aims at equal distribution of resources among the people, so in that type of system their will be no rich and poor. But sadly the communist movement has been subverted and maligned by occult secret societies, and now it is in their hands. But, I still think communist ideologies if properly implemented without the intervention of masonic and other gangs, can destroy the hegemony of the ruling capitalist class and has the potential of bringing peace and prosperity in the world.

Well since this thread started, over $15 million has been donated to charity by US Freemasons, many lodges (mine included) have gained members and the world over people have been given a hand by rescuers that also happen to be Freemasons.

On the other hand, this thread has generated enough organic waste to fertilize the entire farming infrastructure of a small Communist country three times over.

It has also destroyed any faith I might have had in the PhD process in the UK.

So in the final analysis I guess the reader has to ask himself whether he feels more comfortable with the information presented by masons, or the delusions perpetrated by the self-proclaimed spawn of a creature that doesn't exist.

Originally posted by illuminazislayer
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

Freemasonry is a bad wound on the body of French communism. It should be burned with a hot iron.
-----Leon Trotsky

Communist leaders were always against freemasonry and other secret societies right from the inception of communism. They expressed their anger and sadness towards infiltration of elements of freemasonry in the communist movement.

en.internationalism.org...

Marx exposed the secret collaboration of the British and Russian cabinets since the time of Peter the Great. In his writings against Lord Palmerston, Marx revealed that the continuation of this secret alliance was directed essentially against revolutionary movements throughout Europe. In fact, during the first sixty years of the 19th century, Russian diplomacy, the bastion of counter-revolution at that time, was involved in "all the conspiracies and uprisings" of the day, including the insurrectional secret societies such as the Carbonari, trying to manipulate them to its own ends (Engels: The Foreign Policy of Czarist Russia).

In 1922, in response to the French Communist Party's infiltration by elements belonging to freemasonry, who had gangrened the party since its foundation at the Tours Congress, the 4th Congress of the Communist International, in its "Resolution on the French question", reaffirmed class principles in the following terms:

"The incompatibility between freemasonry and socialism was considered to be evident in most of the parties of the Second International (...) If the Second Congress of the Communist International, in its conditions for joining the International, did not formulate a special point on the incompatibility between communism and freemasonry, it was because this principle found its place in a separate resolution unanimously voted by the Congress."

The fact, unexpectedly revealed at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, that a considerable number of French communists belong to masonic lodges is, in the eyes of the Communist International, the most clear and at the same time the most pitiful proof that our French Party has conserved not only the psychological heritage of the epoch of reformism, of parliamentarism and patriotism, but also liaisons that are very concrete, very compromising for the leadership of the party, with the secret, political and careerist organisations of the radical bourgeoisie.

The goal of freemasonry has always been to infiltrate any movement that is against capitalism and its cruelties, because economic class system is what masonic bankers want.

Yes I think that you are generally correct, however if you consider for example one of the forefathers of modern Anarchist philisophy, Proudhon, Proudhon was primarily a philosopher of Anarchism; the fact that he was a Freemason does not seem to have played a major role in his life; he appears to have joined Masonry while serving his apprenticeship as a printer, just as many young apprentices did. I really would not hold the Masonic membership of a number of primarily French political radicals against many of them; certainly Masonry is anti-thetical to Anarchism and Communism, but just because someone joined a Capitalist gang or a religious cult in their youth, does not necessarily mean that this became central to their entire lives. As one gets older one can eiher become "wiser" and cast off the foolishness of one's youth or one can become an "old fool."

"the Jewish Freemason pyramid controls 80% of the economy of the capitalist countries and 90-95 per cent of the information media." ---- Professor Valeri Yemelyanov.

Again this is based on a "conspiracy theory" entwined with European and British Israelism which was an ahistorical fiction popular in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries and is carried on by the Masons today, that the white Europeans were the descendents of the ancient Isralites (who were African slaves). It is simply a "tin foil hat" conspiracy theory and the Masons are among it's main promoters in the 21st century

From a British perspective it seems to me that the vast majority of Masons are not of a European Jewish background (i.e., Europeans whose ancestors converted to Judaism), nor are they of "African" or "Semitic" appearance. This idea of "Jewish Freemasons" controlling the economy seems to be based on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion hoax" which is still today promoted by Masonic authors such as Michael Baigent. Further since one of the most economically powerful Capitalist banking Cabals, the Rosthchild group, have ancestors who were both European Jews and Masons, I think that the "Henry Makow" type conspiratorialists have jumped on this and come to the conclusion that the rulers of the world are Jewish Masons; it is not a conclusion supported by very much evidence; Capitalism is ruled by Capitalists, not by Jews or Masons, though some Capitalists are Jewish and some are Masons. The modern Jewish people, especially among the youth who will be the future legacy of the European Jews, tend to be highly educated and are more likely to be Socialists, Communists, Anarchists and secularists; they are more likely to revere modern Jewish prophets such as Marx, Trotsky and Noam Chomsky than primitive Bronze Age religious fanatics such as Moses.

Communism aims at equal distribution of resources among the people, so in that type of system their will be no rich and poor. But sadly the communist movement has been subverted and maligned by occult secret societies, and now it is in their hands. But, I still think communist ideologies if properly implemented without the intervention of masonic and other gangs, can destroy the hegemony of the ruling capitalist class and has the potential of bringing peace and prosperity in the world.

Almost any organisation can be infiltrated by the state terrorists; even the UK's largest Communist Party, the Socialist Worker's Party had a committee member who was working for British miltiary intelligence for some years; that is no reflection on the 1000's of dedicated and ideologically sincere SWP members. A party or an organisation can be infiltrated to an extent, but a "philosophy" is another matter; a philosophy can outlive the pen of the philosopher for centuries and aeons.

There was a prominent case recently of a British policeman who infiltrated for many years radical Leftist groups, however in order to support his disguise he was active in numerous demonstrations and donated time, money, vehicles and resources to such groups; he had to submit to the "ideology" of such groups rather than deradicalising them however; if the state terrorists wish to sponsor and offer manpower to the radical left, perhaps we should thank them for their assistance.

Lux

reply to post by Lucifer777


You hit on my version of what i meant be true capitalism in the way you phrased Ron Pauls ideals, i'm in the similar mind set of the conclusion Ron Paul comes to in terms of how government should be ran....

When you broke down the stereo type of true capitalism and true communism in the picture of the heavy set kid and the starving kid i see even in that sense stereo type capitalism trumps stereo type communism because the heavy set kid could lose the weight were the starving kid is just gonna die....

Originally posted by King Seesar
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

You hit on my version of what i meant be true capitalism in the way you phrased Ron Pauls ideals, i'm in the similar mind set of the conclusion Ron Paul comes to in terms of how government should be ran....

When you broke down the stereo type of true capitalism and true communism in the picture of the heavy set kid and the starving kid i see even in that sense stereo type capitalism trumps stereo type communism because the heavy set kid could lose the weight were the starving kid is just gonna die....

On Political Philosophy and "Correct Politics."

Lucfer



The discussion of political philosophy can be a very vast subject. "Correct Politics" is of course crucial, since incorrect politics can have genocidal consequences, lead to wars and civil wars and create economic hell on earth. Most people enter such a study and debate under the influence of lifelong political propaganda and indoctrination and of of course our social environment influences this, so a person raised in the mainstream conservative culture from Arkansas is more likely to have conservative views than a person raised in the liberal subculture of California, London or Paris.

My own political philosophy it not one which I have just chosen out of a hat nor is a product of my childhood environment, but rather it is a consequence of a lifetime of studying and debating political philosophy. There have been periods in my life, in my 20's particularly, where I tended towards anti-Communism, but over the years of studying and debating this subject I have become gone through an intellectual conversion to Neomarxism, then I became convincedd of the arguments by the Libertarian Left, which is essentially a definition of Anarchist Communism, and recently I have to realise that "some" limited forms of Neomarxist military states may be necessary in many regions, since the world exists in a state of constant war, and the Capitalist state terrorists andCapitalisttgangsterss are entirely militant and organised themselves.

Ron Paul, Ayn Rand and the Libertarian Right.

Part of the problem is that many people's support for political candidates is often influenced by a "single issue" or "a few issues." For example, there are some Americans who will not vote for a candidate who is pro-life (anti-abortion) and there are persons who will not vote for a candidate who is opposed to the constitutional right to bear arms. Such "single issue" or "several issue" persons generally do not have a very worked out political philosophy.

When it comes to Ron Paul, in order to consider his political philosophy, I am going to set aside some of the criticisms of the Left against Ron, particularly statements he has made in the past which could be described as racist, anti-Communist and homophobic and just deal with economic issues. Ron was born in 1935 and I think that he is just very much a creature of the conservative American environment which affects most of that generation. Probably most American WASP's (White Anglo Saxon Protestants) of that generation had such attitudes. Ron Paul is also an Episcopalian (i.e., Church of England), however in order to assess his economics I am going to set that aside and refrain from attacking his silly religion and his cult leader (Elizabeth Windsor), who is also the head of one of the world's leading terrorist organisations and drug trafficking gangs (i.e., the British armed forces) .

Right Libertarianism, State Capitalism (the Nationalisation of Banking), the nationalisation of the money supply and the "gold " standard.

When we look at what is "progressive" about a political ideology, most political ideologies have "some" progressive elements to them, including some of the most vile ideologies such as Nazism, however it is not by certain progressive policies that we judge an ideology, but by the entirety of their manifesto.

Ron Paul is promoting the nationalisation of the Federal Reserve, which is essentially the source of the US money supply. For example Cuba has zero national debt in it's own currency, since it just prints money; it does not borrow it's own currency from private bankers and so there is nothing to repay; the only debts Cuba has are in foreign currencies.
Similarly if the the US currency supply were nationalised, the $14 trillion national debt would disappear overnight, and the only debts America would have would be in foreign currencies. The mounting US "deficit" is clearly not an illusion however; this is the amount that the US government have to pay off to the world's leading gangster Capitalists. The nationalisation of all banking however does not seem to be part of Ron Paul's manifesto; it is merely the nationalisation of the money supply.

Further Ron Paul has written "The Case for Gold (1982)," which seems a rather silly idea to tie currencies to the amount of gold they have. I don't think that he has really thought through the implications of this. 50% of the world's gold ever produced has been mined in South Africa, and recently South Africa became toppled from being the world's largest gold producer by China. Tying a currency to the nation's gold reserves may be good news for the Chinese and the South Africans, but certainly not for the rest of the world. There is simply no need to secure a currency to "any" commodity, as with the case of Cuban state Capitalism. Further most of the gold certificates issues in the world's stock markets are not backed by gold anyway, and there have been cases where gold bars used in banking have been found to be gold plated Tungsten (which has a similar weight to gold); the gold standard is simply an antiquated idea and there was never a gold standard anyway, since reserve banking was practised and many more promissory notes were issued for gold than the issuers possessed.

Right Libertarianism is "almost" pure "laissez faire (anything goes)" Capitalism with a small government and a "free market". There would be no socialised medicine, housing or welfare. This might be a wonderful idea if you are a gangster Capitalist or if you are one of the owners (shareholders) of Walmart (the world's largest company in financial terms), Exxon, Shell Oil or British Petroleum, whose taxes would be reduced, but it would not be so good for everyone else. The rich would simply become richer and the poor would become poorer and it would be a situation very much like Russia with a few billionaire oligarchs and an impoverished and often unemployed proletariat. If the masses did not have the income to purchase goods and services, they simply would not be produced, even if there was a necessity and demand for them. This is essentially why people die due to the effects of poverty in poor Capitalist states; it is not because more food cannot be produced, but because the poor often do not have sufficient capital to pay for the food; Capitalism is simply not an effective system of rationing vital resources.

This kind of Right Libertarianism is based upon Ayn Randism, which is really a more radical version of Adam Smith-ism which considers unfettered greed to be beneficial and promotes the "virtues" of an unfettered free market of gangster Capitalism. This is in line with Social Darwinism where the poor are left to die, or to be impoverished and enslaved and the rich can accumulate Capital in abundance, but it is not a humanitarian utopian philosophy; it is a philosophy which would lead to an even worse economic hell on earth and would eradicate the progressive aspects of European Socialism.

Taxation

Almost 30% of US GDP (the value all the goods and services sold) is acquired by the government in the form of taxation. In addition the US government has to borrow around 40% of it's income just to maintain it's government. This is like a gangster who demands 30% of all turnover in protection money and is still borrowing 40% of his income from other gangster. The US has the largest budget of any government in human history and in the world today, and is the world's largest arm's exporter and has the world's largest "defence" budget, though "defence" is largely doublespeak of for imperialistic aggression. Based on such vast income, the US population should have the highest standard of living and should be looking "down" at the Scandinavian socialist utopias, but it is not the case, for this is an Imperialistic militaristic state; the US population pays for it's overseas wars, but the benefits, for example, in the mass privatisation of Iraq's nationalised industries have gone to a handful of Western corporations. The proletariat thus pay for wars which benefit a few imperialistic gangster Capitalists.

Libertarian socialism

Libertarian socialism promotes a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism promotes free association in place of government. Its adherents oppose what they view as the coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labour. The term "libertarian socialism" is used by adherents to differentiate their politics from state socialism, or as a synonym for socialist anarchism.

Libertarian socialists assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian control of the means of production. Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as municipalities, citizens' assemblies, trade unions and workers' councils.

Libertarian socialism includes most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism and social ecology) as well as some varieties of Marxism (such as autonomism and council communism), and some versions of individualist anarchism. Some varieties of Fabianism and socialist social-democracy, which do not immediately or absolutely seek stateless societies or the abolition of capitalism, are libertarian socialist.

Anarcho-capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism (also known as "libertarian anarchy" or "market anarchism" or "free market anarchism" is a libertarian and an individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the provision of its services through the free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services are provided by voluntarily funded competitors such as private defence agencies rather than through compulsory taxation. Anarcho-capitalism has been described as a radical form of libertarianism.

en.wikipedia.org...

Both the Anarcho Capitalists (Right Libertarians) and Anarcho-Communists (Socialist Libertarians) have certain libertarian values in common, however these are just slogans about human freedom, not economic similarities; these two ideologies are athethiciall (the opposite idea) politicalphilosophieses which would have an entire different economic effect; the Anarcho Communist solution seeks to create a society where "everyone" would benefit, whereas in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, it would seem that greed and economic selfishness would be be rewarded and gangster Capitalists would seem to be guaranteed to rule the world at the expense of the enslaved masses.

Ron Paul of course is not an Anarcho-Capitalist, but is a more moderate "Right Libertarian" who supports the idea of a small but limted government. Frankly it is my view that Ron Paul is popular generally only because of a "single policy," or a "few policies," and this single most popular policy would probably be the cancellation of the US national debt to the private bankers and the nationalisation of the issuance of currency. This of course is entirely progressive. Similarly the Nazis in the 1920's promised to "hang the bankers from the lampposts," though they only nationalised "some" banks; however the nationalisation of the money supply is an issue supported by progressives of the left and the right, but it is only "one" issue.



Clearly Libertarians such as Ron Paul and Alex Jones are quite aware that America is run by a secret (or not so secret really) military government entwined with the CIA, and are quite clued up on CIA / US military narco-terrorism, however the question remains as to what they can do about it? To take on the world's leading terrorist organisation and narcotics' trafficker (i.e., the US military, including the CIA) and the world's most economically powerful gangster Capitalists (the banking elites) is certainly a a virtuous and admirable position and I do have a great deal of respect towards them for such activism, however with regards to how they plan to deal with this, it is one thing to offer criticisms and it is quite another to offer a working counterproposal. Frankly the Castro and Guevara method would involve a military coup and the "firing squad" and frankly since the US military is so large, this would have genocidal consequences; however personally I cannot conceive of any other practical option.

"If an injury has to be done....it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared......Before all else, be armed. " Machiavelli

Unfortunately I am sceptical as to whether the world's leading gangster Capitalists and the world's leading terrorist organisation (the US military) can simply be eradicated by "democratic" and "political means," and since they are militant criminals with a long history of genocidal state terrorism, assassinations and military coups, and are armed with weapons of mass destruction. I very much suspect it will require total warfare against America, and this is unlikely to succeed with conventional weaponry. Thus an apocalyptic "military" solution, rather that a purely political solution will almost certainly be required. This seems to be a conclusion which many among the major militant enemies of US imperialism have reached including the Communists and the Islamic religious fanatics, both of whom tend to predict global apocalyptic war, rather than "peaceful" revolution.

Unfortunately, when discussing political philosophy the entire plethora of gang mentality, one-liner sloganeering and straw man arguments is usually unleashed, as if a discussion between rival gangs of hooligans or children in a playground; this is not conducive to intelligent debate; “incorrect politics” is not a victimless crime and such matters need to be thought through, discussed and debated with a great deal of thought as to the repercussions of implimenting any economic solutions to the curent “International Dictatorship of Capitalism.”

“Words are Weapons. Physics is War. Propaganda is the First Stage of War”

Lucifer
Blasphemy, Heresy, War, Revolution, etc.

reply to post by Lucifer777

Capitalism is ruled by Capitalists, not by Jews or Masons, though some Capitalists are Jewish and some are Masons. The modern Jewish people, especially among the youth who will be the future legacy of the European Jews, tend to be highly educated and are more likely to be Socialists, Communists, Anarchists and secularists; they are more likely to revere modern Jewish prophets such as Marx, Trotsky and Noam Chomsky than primitive Bronze Age religious fanatics such as Moses.

Yes it is true that capitalism is ruled by capitalists and not by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Africans or people of any caste, color, creed or nationality etc., but still we see a "small majority" of people from all these different faiths and nationalities in the global secret society network which is at the forefront in the current capitalist empires, all around the world. why? Because it is absolutely necessary for the global elite to manipulate people of diverse ethnicity, culture, religion etc. to advance their capitalist agendas around the world.

That's why we see secret societies like freemasonry, present in almost every country in the world, whether it is a Muslim dominated middle-eastern country or a Hindu majority country like India, both of them have absolutely no cultural or religious connection with freemasonry, in fact people of third world countries especially Muslims hate anything coming from the west. So, to establish masonic lodges in such countries it is necessary to persuade by hook or crook, the high ranking politicians and businessman of those countries; irrespective of them being Jewish, Muslims, Hindus etc. I'm Not an Anti-Semite

And I believe the people at higher echelons of secret societies do not adhere to any tags i.e I am a Jew, I am a christian, I am a Muslim etc. Such type of religious/ethnoreligious tags are for indoctrination of humanity and lower level initiates of secret societies.The only religion that the capitalist elites adhere to is the religion of capitalism.

reply to post by illuminazislayer

Thank you for your "refreshing" anti-Semitic views.

I can't help but think Lucifer and Illuminatiazislayer are big trolls... or at the least huge jokes...

Lucifer: 50 year old man with 90 year old retired Mason father. Has an affinity to BDSM, presumably of same sex. Lives in Ultra Mega Capitalist UK. Has huge obsessions with the masons. Was probably rejected from joining and because of that he resents them .

Illuminatinazislayer: Illuminati Nazi Slayer? Just the name sounds like a bad joke... can't even mention how horrid his posts are...

reply to post by illuminazislayer

Capitalism, to it's fullest extent is imperialism, a form of dictator ship. We really need a mixed system between capitalism and socialism. Right now we are headed for a "communist capitalism"

Capitalism with it's full open market economy will lead eventualy to communism, where there is no competition
and there is just the big corporation dictating, that is communism. So capitalism can lead to communism.

The only way to ensure lasting freedom and open choice is to have a mixed balanced system between the two, between socialism and capitalism.

I must agree with you that masonry is part of the agenda. It's what they desire also a communist capitalism where only the wining side dictates with total control. The worst form of dictatorship is Imperialism.
"Imperial"ism" or better put "Empire"-lism, it's always about the Roman Empire, it's what they want, they want the Roman Empire back.

reply to post by pepsi78


I was gonna hit on this point, i feel the so called gangster capitalists that Lucifer777 keeps talking about began as true freedom loving capitalists but became so greedy that in the end some (not all) of these so called mega capitalists actually became comminuist so we should be arguing about the comminuist who ended up corrupting a very good capitalist idea that made America prosper.

Were i disagree with you pepsi78 is i don't think we should allow any type of socialism to enter into the picture when it comes to the United States, it's not the answer and just will cause more problems, what i think we need to do is reform the capitalist ideals that made capitalism so great in the first place....think America in the 50's and Japan in the 90's.....

As far as i'm concerned Japan in the 90's was the best economical ran country that the world has ever seen, they were free, everybody was prospering but they made the same mistake the United States did, they shipped there jobs over seas which they should of learned wasen't a good move seeing how America's tactic of this wasen't such a great idea....

My two cents anyway....

Were i disagree with you pepsi78 is i don't think we should allow any type of socialism to enter into the picture when it comes to the United States, it's not the answer and just will cause more problems, what i think we need to do is reform the capitalist ideals that made capitalism so great in the first place....think America in the 50's and Japan in the 90's.....

You need social values to regulate the market, impose restrictions, to secure it's future.
A total free open market will kill competition and it will become what we see today, gigantic corporations killing off little owned businesses. You need an aquarium where you got all sorts of fish, big medium and small, the only way for the big fish not to eat the rest you do need social values and restrictions put on the market.

Capitalism 100% turns into comunism, because there is no way to sustain capitalism on it's own, because capitalism knows only how to consume, it does address the consumer, it's what it is. Full capitalism has no limitations, it's 100% free based on the market. It makes competition then it kills it off fast, because you can only stay in the competition if you have financial backing. Once there is no competition there is no game, there is no capitalism anymore, it turns into imperialism, into an empire where there is no competition because it was killed off. Capitalism is a form of an extremity, just like comunism.



The free open market was an agenda, it's clear that out of the open market gigantic forms of totalitarian rule will form and that the open free market is nothing but a trap, like a shark that is let loose without any forms of restrictions. A new world can form out of capitalism, where dictatorship in the form of corporate comunism can take place, of course big coroprations are ran by people at the top. I think masonry is an organisation that is taking part in such an act. The op was right, where you got capitalism you got masonry. Masonry is a big organisation, very big, just like say Microsoft. The bigger you are the more monopoly you can impose, you can
pull strings, dictate behind the curtain then smile in broad day light like nothing happened. You are big then you can control and manipulate.

There was a thread I remember, people can't find jobs, but MCdonalds is offering 10000+ jobs if I remember.
MCdonalds is big, and like a big corporation it sucked all the jobs. You can't find any jobs except MCdonalds, because all other stuff is gone, there is only Mcdonalds. If you don't like it there is no other place to go except Mcdonalds, so there is no option. This is it with big corporations and organisations, they suck the air out of everything until there is nothing left but them. When you come to terms and think organisations such Masonry is bigger even than Mcdonalds, anything bigger than that sounds threatening. At this size very big, you can pull stings, control create a mirage because you got so many members, you can spread them online to promote your self, and scielence others that talk bad about you, with so many members active you can form an array.

I see masonry like a tool for the globalist agenda, a very big organisation with tentacles everywhere like an octopus, reaching everywhere. Any big organisation can form a monopoly either on the market or in other places
that are not necesary related to economy but are regarded as a control mechanism.




It's an ugly world that is forming, you can already see the results, no jobs at all because people's businesses are not working. They ruined the economy on purpose, as an deliberate act. The world bank is only there to put people in debt. It's really a scam for a new world dictatorship to form.

Everything really works in a controled enviorment, where control weako freaks control the system making it fall in a assisted crash down so they can come out into the open then and go public with the new form they want to implement, the new world order.

When you look at the end none of the two comunism with socialist views or capitalism based on 100% free to rip others off is a choice to go. The only way for stability is to mix the two, each regulating eachother for a balance, where you got capitalism but you also got socialism to regulate capitalsim, regulate the markets, impose limits that will protect small owned enterprises, job growth.... etc, and have capitalism so there is a open market, so 100% socialism does not take hold, where just like in 100% capitalism there is no reinventing
anymore, no new ideas.

I know a mason who goes into NYC every winter with about 5 other masons to give out coats to the homeless

bastard !!!!

I'm sure you'll say it's all part of the design to fool us, lol

reply to post by Lucifer777


Hi, Lucifer777 I broadly agree with your general points. I quite randomly came across this thread while looking for a critique of Masonic ideology and practice written by the International Communist Current (ICC) which you link to. I subscribe to their press but I wouldn't go as far as to call myself a 'sympathiser' (yet!) though I do have a lot of time for them, their programme and what they write etc To the more important issue:

Frankly the Castro and Guevara method would involve a military coup and the "firing squad" and frankly since the US military is so large, this would have genocidal consequences; however personally I cannot conceive of any other practical option.

Well this sounds to me thoroughly within the realm of 'National Liberation'. The World Revolution is not a national affair and thus it's not in a sense the American proletariat against the US state. But the international working class against all states and the existing political and social conditions. It is also important to reflect upon what has been the result of National Liberation movements. A national working class has still existed, being exploited, the countries in question become isolated and have to follow the dictates of the international economic and political/social system i.e capitalism. You appear to basically be saying you cannot conceive of an international revolution yet one has already been attempted earlier in the last century! You are also (though you may not realise it) defending state capitalism. i.e the individual take over of nation states which presupposes the management of the national economy, the national capital. Fidel in Cuba, Sankara in Burkina Faso etc etc.

Unfortunately I am sceptical as to whether the world's leading gangster Capitalists and the world's leading terrorist organisation (the US military) can simply be eradicated by "democratic" and "political means," and since they are militant criminals with a long history of genocidal state terrorism, assassinations and military coups, and are armed with weapons of mass destruction. I very much suspect it will require total warfare against America, and this is unlikely to succeed with conventional weaponry. Thus an apocalyptic "military" solution, rather that a purely political solution will almost certainly be required. This seems to be a conclusion which many among the major militant enemies of US imperialism have reached including the Communists and the Islamic religious fanatics, both of whom tend to predict global apocalyptic war, rather than "peaceful" revolution.

As for Guevara I think I'm right in saying he said something like

there needs to be five Vietnams

Which is the same kind of nonsense you're suggesting with "total warfare against America", and the banality about weapons etc. Where does the class politics come into it here? The Vietnam War was partly ended because of American soldiers disobeying orders, shooting officers, refusing to enlist etc etc and the protests in the US itself. To think that 'Socialist States' will need to go to war with America is void of communist and class politics. I could say more on this but I'm sure there will already be some confusion about my rejection of 'Socialist States' etc to some posters on here.

So, lastly you say "the Communists and the Islamic religious fanatics, both of whom tend to predict global apocalyptic war, rather than "peaceful" revolution." Do you mean to imply the Communists are fanatics as well as the 'Islamic' (which should actually be Islamacists or that some Communists are fanatics? I'm not sure how to quantify it but some communists are of the opinion there will probably be civil war. It has long been argued the bourgeoisie will not give up their power, control and ownership voluntarily! And proved quite correct! But your use of 'apocalyptic' I think stems from your understanding of how communist revolution is made and how it will come about i.e through seizing power of individual nation states i.e bourgeois coups and then engaging in your own inter-imperialist wars! All these in my view incorrect understandings of World Revolution i.e socialist revolution stem from an absence of working class politics and full of nationalist ones i.e bourgeois ideology.

I'm sure there will be some misunderstandings, hopefully we can clarify further on these questions and my criticisms. I'll check this thread in the near future for any replies.

reply to post by pepsi78


Everything you said makes perfect sense and i agree with most of it until you mention socialism, my friend socialism is communism under a different name, now i'm not saying the changes you want are bad but do it with out going the socialist rout, there's ways to make capitalism prosper for the small business and such with out going the socialist rout, basically do what you say but do it under new fair and free laws that are not of socialist values but that are of a free democracy that harbor no threat too America's constitution....


In the big picture we really see eye to eye because your right on with what the New World Order's agenda is but i think the way to tackle it is through new laws that are based on freedom and democracy and don't see a socialist agenda helping us but rather helping the New Word Order players in the long run....