Alex Jones and the commentators on his site exposed as agents of the GOP

reply to post by neo96


Define communism, and please don't go to WIKI and just copy what they wrote?

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by neo96

 

Define communism, and please don't go to WIKI and just copy what they wrote?

hey! When i ask you to clarify something for me, you tell me to go look for myself, but now you are asking someone to find you the definition for communism, and they have to use their own wording?
Do you get my point?

reply to post by chrissiel123


I have provided links, what else do you want?

Folks on ATS have such a low opinion of themselves they refuse to think much for themselves unfortunately.
Do we always have to link to other peoples ideas?

reply to post by chrissiel123


I am going to expose some people’s knowledge as being scanty, yet they always say this person or that person is a communist or socialist. And I think they don’t even understand what communism and socialism really is.

reply to post by inforeal


Alex Jones doesn't have to define the OWS as socialists they are doing that all on their own. Whenit first started they could get no MSM coverage then along came the experts. Experts like Ivan Marovic who was a founder of OTPOR which is known to be CIA sponsored. Why do you think Al Gore called for an US Spring only a few weeks before things began to happen. Why do you think Obama and others have came out in support when Obama for one is Wallstreet. Van Jones and SEUI which had a meeting at the White House just prior to the protest called for an October Offensive and what month is this. Oh ya October. Back to Ivan Marovic and Srdja Popvic were and are sponsored by the CIA and were handled by William Montogomery which was the co-ordinator for the CIA headquarters for Southern Europe and later became the US Ambassador in Serbia after the 1990's war which the was instigated by the very people who are currently organizing OWS as I type this. Why are the leaders who are mostly foreign nationals allowed to be the US streets and dictate our revolt in any given situation not being controled by TPTB all of them would be arrested and sent back to their own country. Then you have the nerve to throw accusations angainst American people who you apparently don't agree with your beliefs. My question what is wrong with anyone including Alex Jones backing his beliefs and political party? What is wrong with Americans including Alex Jones exercising his 1st Admendment rights? Its ok for anyone but Americans dictate who speaks for America except Americans?.

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by Misoir

 

You couldn’t intelligently or intelligibly define Marxism, socialism or communism. All you do is throw labels at people to hide your lack of in-depth knowledge.

What form of Marxism would you like me to explain? The material Marxism as explained in Das Kapital or the cultural ‘Freudian’ Marxism as explained by Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, and the other members of the Frankfurt School? How about let us begin with material Marxism. It was founded off a materialist world view, similar to classical liberalism, and believed in the class struggle of the proletariat versus the bourgeois.

It focused upon the contradiction within the capitalist system between the ‘relations of production’ and ‘material productive forces of society’. Through this contradiction the fundamental core of the Marxist ideology begins its predictions which is the inevitable ‘proletariat revolution’ where the proletariat rise up against the bourgeois who use capitalism as a mechanism through which they oppress the masses of workers (proletariat) and finally a socialist system would result.

Under Socialism (the transitory face into communism) the means of production and private property would be superseded by co-operative ownership. This, what most would consider ‘inevitable’ result, is due to the inherent faults in capitalism of not just the contradiction as mentioned above but also because of the reduction of workers’ wages from falling profits so that the bourgeois are not affected, cutting back on the minimal social benefits provided in the time of Marx’s work and the ‘imperialistic’ tendencies of the Western European capitalist nations which would waste their money on military aggression.

The socialist society would be that the goal of production is not for capital but for immediate use to fully satisfy human needs. The end result is communism; a classless, stateless, freedom, and all of it based upon co-ownership and ‘free-access’.

However the Frankfurt School is a different from of Marxism, more appropriately termed ‘Cultural Marxism’ as it saw that Marx’s predictions did not occur and that there had to be another explanation for why the proletariat would not rise up for a revolution but instead fought in WWI for their nation against other proletariat. They analyzed the reasons why throughout the 1920s but it was not until the 1930s after they fled Germany due to the rise of the Nazis to power that they realized by comparing the American culture with the German culture that the ultimate problem for a proletariat revolution is culture.

Marx’s materialism rejected idealism as an interference in the lives of the proletariat, but the Frankfurt School believed it was critical. They soon established that this idealism; patriotism, religion, cultural identity, and acceptance of the bourgeois order was an ‘authoritarian personality’ developed because of the patriarchal family structure of Western civilization. Their goal then was to develop the Critical Theory, spawned out of Max Weber’s nonpositivist sociology, and use it as a way of deconstructing the capitalist order in the West that allowed for patriotism, religion, capitalism, and authority, ultimately the ‘Fascist system’, and ‘liberating’ people so that the proletariat revolution may commence.

However Herbert Marcuse, founder of the ‘New Left’, later concluded in his book ‘One-Dimensional Man’ that Western society was too engrained against any possibility of a proletariat revolution so outside forces must be the leaders. In this he claimed that a permanent hostile opposition must be established in the West, a permanent ‘fifth column’, where the minorities (immigrants, gays, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, etc…) must be taught a group-think which divides them from the majority culture, administering the Critical Theory which is nothing more than ‘to criticize’ excessively with the intent of degrading and weakening Western culture.

Once the youth could be convinced into joining the rebellion, i.e. ‘counterculture movement’ of the 1960s, then the order could became fractured leading to the ultimate proletariat revolution by ‘outsiders’ rather than the workers.

Only the ignorant accepts your libels and slanders that have no basis in logical reality.

All you conservative anti-human lovers and defenders of the rich and rapacious are all low level and immoral people who have no affinity to what is good, decent human values.

'Anti-human', lack of 'decent human values', 'immoral', wow there you go again! Man you never stop!

Don’t you EVER dare to insult me, because you aren’t worthy of any intelligent response.

Get off my thread!
Or learn to RESPECT ME or you can go back to where youi came from.

I will give you the utmost respect and happily do so but only if you deserve that respect.

reply to post by chrissiel123

Hey Chissiel, I apologize to you if you really sincerely meant to ask me about proof. I am so use to wise guys on this forum like two here I wont mention by name, I have become jaded.


My idea that Jones is a phony comes from his attitude towards progressive causes that he and his minions always label as communist or socialists.

Just because one believes in the Roosevelt new deal that brought social security, unemployment insurance and many other middle class rights and privileges that allowed for the growth of the middle class, doesn’t mean one is a communist. Jones peddles this nonsense over and over and I knew he would label a great movement and marginalize it as left wing socialism.

reply to post by redrose123


Strange you attack me for attacking Jones’s attack on the OWS.
Don’t I have a right to attack Jones’s ideas as he has attacked and called the OWS communists and socialists because they have progressive issues they support?

I have labeled Jones a GOP conservative, because he espouses the same domestic philosophy as they do. I also have labeled him a hysterical phony NWO conspiracy theorists. That’s my right as is his right to attack the OWS.

reply to post by inforeal


I noticed the issues you call progressive are what? You started the attack against someone who is an American while you ignore the know organizers of the Serbian War to mention one are on our very streets telling the MSM and the American ppeople what they want and should demand. Something wrong here? If they were actually concerned in fixing the problem in this country they would be calling for things like end the Fed, arrest criminals that occupy our government, End the Patriot Act, Bring back Fair Tariffs, No one can call themselves progressives, socialists or liberals who don't call to end the WARS. Who don't demand Civil Liberties, Who don't call for Freedom. In regards to communism why would anyone back that is has been nothing but death and derstruction every where it has showed its ugly head. The people whom support that either don't know their history or are simply there for the money.

Attention...

The petty personal attacks stop now. Adherence to this request is expected.

Further bad behavior will result in an automatic suspension of posting privileges. No exceptions.

Consider this fair warning.

ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Further rude behavior can ans will result in temporary Posting Bans.

If members cannot follow debate civilly, this thread will be closed.

Originally posted by inforeal
All their rhetoric is conservative tea party based. Alex Jones is exposed by the OWS movement as nothing but a covert agent of the Republican conservative party.

No, it's not all conservative based rhetoric, he's the king of being outside the left/right paradigm. The OWS movement is thousands if not millions of people, they are a diverse group of people and you can't just generalize them to carry out your wishes.

He is not only a distorter and liar and hysterical clown but a dangerous enemy of ordinary Americans who supports a neo-con domestic policy.

Neo-con? Lol. Let me just stop there, it's not worth going on. You are accusing Alex Jones of being only a right-wing conservative type, when that is all YOU are focused on. You twice smeared Alex Jones as a right-winger, and so the stone you cast is a reflection of your own ways.

reply to post by Misoir


You have read a few books, wonderful. I read and understood Marx, Engels, Freud and Mao when I was 15.

That doesn’t have much to do with the simple fact that we are all one nation under GOD!
Not this rich group over here getting rich off the society they have been born in and exploit and benefit from and get rich off the rest of us through our labor who just want to survive.

That means social security, unemployment insurance and a viable pro-human, NOT ANY UTOPIAN DREAMS, safety net, and mostly a fair and just capitalist economic system free of the Wall Street type gambling Casino that ruined the economy and for those who unfortunately, through no fault of their own, fall through the cracks in the dog eat dog capitalist society we have.

Is that remotely socialism or communism?

If you ever talk to a REAL communist or socialist and tell them Obama is a socialist or communist they would laugh at you.

Sure there are elements in our system that resemble “socialism” but this country is no where near any kind of socialist society.

In Germany, Canada and many Scandinavian countries, that although aren’t perfect, they have a much more workable and human system that takes care of the populace and those countries are hardly communist.

I haven’t read the Communist and socialist stuff for years but know that this system is not remotely near those systems. I live and work with immigrants from Russia and most of them are certain this country is nothing like the old Soviet Union they come from.

I personally wouldn’t want to live in a society completely run by the state, but in a post-modern capitalist civilization there has to be a safety net that covers at least human survival. And a protection against the elite forming power blocks that essentially spell a tyranny of money on the populace. Jefferson and all the early founders and even Eisenhower spoke against such a calamity.

As for conservativism, well the GOP today wouldn’t even elect Ronald Reagan as their presidential candidate. They have become so reactionary in the GOP.
Years ago I could support some conservatives, even Richard Nixon was a .progressive compared to these present GOP reactionaries and lackeys of the elite.

If you recall even Ronald Reagan use to say the same thing Obama said regarding the rich paying less taxes than their hair stylist or the shoe shine boy!

Nixon was actually the one to implement much of the great society programs that were enacted under Johnson.
Indeed, today we have an extreme group in the conservative GOP who are in reality not real conservatives because at least the old time conservatives GOP was moderate in many cases.

If you recall even Ronald Reagan use to say the same thing Obama said regarding the rich paying less taxes than their hair stylist or the shoe shine boy! Nixon was actually the one to implement much of the great society programs that were enacted under Johnson.

reply to post by inforeal


If you think the rich pay less taxes then the people that work for them, then you clearly have absolutely NO understanding of how the economy or taxes even work.......

As far as Nixon..............please...........if hes one of your heros then im not surprised your ideas are what they are.........

Just because someone (jones) is conservative and has other views on other things doesnt mean hes some agent......it means hes a conservative libertarian...........I dont understand why thats a hard concept to grasp...

And you cant demonize anyone for not agreeing with all this OWS stuff...........that makes you no better then what you use to accuse the TPM of doing..........

Infact, i find the whole stance with the OWSers higly hypocritical, considering what many of their proponents said and did to the TPM

reply to post by inforeal


See, this is a better dialogue when we can sit here and discuss things rather than being called names. I agree that AJ is a nut and has an agenda, that I never denied. And yes I agree with you that:
• Obama is not a Socialist, Communist, Marxist, Leninist, Maoist, etc…
• That this no way resembles a materialistically communist country
• That our present day elites have gained power through lying, cheating, manipulating, stealing, and definitely breaking countless civil even moral laws
• There needs to be something done to correct these mistakes and injustices

My approach however is not more of a Social Democratic approach as you prefer, like how Sweden, Denmark, and France operate but more of a Distributist approach. I agree that capitalism has proven itself to be the best economic arrangement but also that it has deep flaws and the ‘hand of the market’ is not going to correct these problems. Try checking out Distributism I think you might actually like it.

"Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists." – G.K. Chesterton
“the distributive state (that is, the state which has implemented distributism) contains an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production." – Hilaire Belloc

We are also probably very different in regards to the cultural issues which I highlighted in my thread here that I hope you take the time to read with an open mind.

I just do not believe in any way, shape, or form ‘equality’ over hierarchy which arises naturally not through coercion. Edmund Burke is as you could say, my ‘philosophical idol’. Being a Conservative does not mean you adhere to Capitalism like its God, that is in fact more of a Liberal (not Social Liberal) approach to politics. Republicans, imo, are Neoliberals with socially, not culturally, conservative arguments that fail to argue from a larger point of view, i.e. civilization.

reply to post by filosophia


You have all the right in the world to defend Alex Jones, as I have a right to denounce him as I see fit.

It does boil down to what people call progressive versus conservative values.

Progressive values in today’s world revolve around helping and assisting ALL human beings on all levels as much as is possible. They desire to feed the hungary and clothed the naked and install political systems that benefit ALL of the people not the few amongst the rich and powerful.

Indeed the very essence of what Buddha taught, what Jesus taught and what Muhammad taught about charity and goodness and decency and love thy neighbor and help those in need and those in distress and to build a society based on justice for all.

It values the focus on the universal progress of all human beings and support life giving and sustaining policies by governments for ALL the people in the world and in the various nations of the world,

Whereas conservative values concentrate on a distorted idea of freedom. An Ayn Rand philosophy of do whatever you want or whatever you can get away with.

The conservative philosophy of today characterized by the philosophy of the Republican and Tea party believes in the right of the elite wealthy to do what they please within the society regardless of how ill it affects the masses of the people.

IMO it is a selfish philosophy of ethno-centric selfishness: my race, my nation, my self, that is antithetical to most ethical and spiritual values that humans prize, and put us avove the lowest part of our nature.

You can choose the values you like; I choose the values of the best part of the human spirit on all levels, including politics where we can go the way of the selfish or the way of the generous as best we can, that revolves around love, compassion, empathy, and justice for all

reply to post by inforeal


im sorry but after reading that last post..........

It is clear you have NO idea what conservative philosophy is .......

You seek to demonize conservatives regardless of what the reality is, in favor of your own progressive ideals......

That is neither objective, or accurate.............

reply to post by Misoir


I agree it is best to communicate in a friendly manner.

Anyway I am always interested in new ideas and would be glad to check out yours.

But I think that in order to be practical and realistic we might be better served now by looking at existing systems in the world that are and have been successful to possibly emulate. I know the American inclination to be in a way or the highway mentality regarding foreign ideas.

Where on the earth now is a government using successfully this system you advocate?

Social Democracy however it is flawed right now is the best we have. I think though that a system that has the best of capitalism and the best of social democracy, as you put it, would be the best system. I am not a rigid dogmatist and therefore believe we can erect a system that has various elements in it.

There are many things I don’t like about what you call social democracy. And in-fact I have many what would be called” conservative” beliefs. I don’t like the ban on guns, I don’t like the crime in the country, and I don’t like the fact that we can’t even put 10grand in the bank without telling the government. I am for the death penalty in certain heinous crimes. So what does that mean I am?

On the other hand I just believe that we could or should have somewhat of a social political system like modern Germany, which believe me is not about to go socialist.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


I didn’t say I loved Nixon; all I said was that the present GOP conservatives are much more reactionary than those in the recent past.

As for Jones, he has labeled numerous people he doesn’t agree with as NWO dupes ALL OVER THE PLACE. Now that I accuse him of the same thing he accuses many others of, such as calling progressives communists and socialists because they might believe in the maintaining of Social Security and Medicare and other programs, people get all bent out of shape.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Understand this, I have gone on his site and accused him of just what I accused him of here and would and will do it again.

Also I would be perfectly willing that one of his followers who write those slanders against the OWS would come here and defend himself.

reply to post by inforeal


Well Distributism actually had some influence at the turn of the twentieth century. It was these thinkers that pushed the ‘trust busting’ movements in the United States and Great Britain. This was their way of trying to reconcile the conflict within capitalism without falling prey to communism/socialism. In my opinion there is no Western country that emulates such a model at this present time but if I was to claim any nation that is closest to such a model it would be the Social Market Economy of Germany.

Christian Democracy and Distributism are closely linked; it was Christian Democracy that the Social Market Economy grew under. The best way to describe Distributism in a historical sense is to compare it to the non-capitalistic countries of continental Europe prior to WWI but after the fall of the stranglehold held by the landed gentry.

One of the greatest influences on this economic/philosophical development was Pope Leo XIII encyclical Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891.

“Of these duties, the following bind the proletarian and the worker: fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss. The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers - that is truly shameful and inhuman. Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings. Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this - that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. “Behold, the hire of the laborers... which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.”. Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed out, would they not be sufficient of themselves to keep under all strife and all its causes?”

Source