It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

page: 59
92
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Sorry, I was too busy worshiping satan to reply sooner...

I find it asinine to suggest that worshiping an entity who's being revolves around the enslavement and torture of all souls for all eternity would lead me to believe that all Men have Freedom and Liberty and the Right to exercise them so long as they do not encroach upon the Freedom and Liberty of another.

If the system in America fails, it will be because those who would see us institute socialism manipulated the laws and currency of the Country in a way to bring about that end. Once in ruins, socialist advocates would then attempt to persuade the People that the system failed not because of their actions but because of the greed of the corporatist, who will be painted as the quintessential Capitalist. I find it interesting that the tactics at play involve driving the Country into bankruptcy facilitated by profligate spending on social programs that fit with the agenda of the progressive socialist.

You charge that those who would see Free Markets that respect the Individual's sovereignty are psychopaths. The very definition of psychopathy contradicts this, and in fact charges that the psychopath shows a nearly complete disregard for the rights of others. You paint Capitalism with same brush as fascism and corporatism, much the same way as socialism is often linked with communism. Your statements then read similarly: "Capitalism is subject to greed and thus ends in fascism or corporatism, which makes it evil; Socialism is not subject to greed and therefore cannot become communism, therefore it is good." The reality is that both are subjected to greed of the sociopath, and therefore both can end up in tyrannical despotism.

I would charge that those at the highest levels attempt to corrupt the current system in hopes of implementing socialism are in sociopaths who see socialism as a conduit with much less resistance to despotism, as I've explained in my earlier posts, and would claim the mantle of the despot for themselves or their ilk.

I in no way charge that this is your agenda, you are likely a very compassionate person who cares about the impoverished and would be willing to give up some or all of your Personal Property Rights to ensure the poor have the basic necessities of life. While this is an honorable sacrifice, I charge that this is a foolish venture. Even in an anarcho-socialistic environment, eventually a system for the distribution of resources will be needed with any kind of significant population. This leads to a sort of "psuedo-governmental" structure that could easily be used by a sociopath to control the population. The greed of the sociopath is left unchecked and the People are impoverished for the benefit of the despot.

The Free Market system as it is supposed to exist in America, by contrast, makes this very difficult. The very notion of each Individual that he is created with Inalienable means that the sociopath must embark either the path of corporatism, which is easily slain by a vigilant Citizenry, to facilitate fascism, or undertake the task of convincing them that socialism is a better means to an end, which must be done by proving the system of Free Markets that respect Individual Sovereignty do not work (as stated above), and allows an easier path to despotism via communism.

The Free Market system, however, has been very resistant to these changes and only after a century of deliberate attempts on its life does it teeter on the brink of failure. Socialism, by contrast, simply does not have this track record of resistance to despotism.

As stated above and in earlier posts, socialism without government, in my opinion, quickly falls at the hands of sociopath. If a representative government of the People, with checks and balances to make quite difficult the task of the aspiring despot, could be set up to oversee your socialism it would be an improvement. However, I believe the driving ideal behind socialism is also its downfall. Sociopaths will quickly infiltrate this structure by appealing to it: "If elected I will make sure to provide more resources for each citizen." Truth of the statement does not matter, the masses would take it hook, line, and sinker in much the same way as like minded Individuals in America do today.

The ideal of Individual Sovereignty, however, has a natural repulsion from these promises, as the government cannot give what it does not take from the Citizens. Individual Sovereignty also allows for the Individual to choose religion and compassion for their lives. The Free Market makes it possible for them gain the resources necessary to act on compassion through charity. Charity is meaningless if done at gunpoint, much in the same way as Religion does nothing for the Soul if the Soul does not choose it for itself. The poor are tended in society in this way if the government leaves the Individual their fairly won resources to do so, and Individual sovereignty is respected.




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I'm going to take a wild guess, from them purchasing something with money they earned by their own labor?


Yes, with the exception of nature, stuff comes from some man having worked on and created it.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
If the system in America fails, it will be because those who would see us institute socialism manipulated the laws and currency of the Country in a way to bring about that end.


The thing to understand here, is that what Stalin (and actually what Marx himself) implemented in Soviet Russia, was not socialism as people other than Marx himself have described the idea. Marx was an Illuminati plant; he and Trotsky were both being controlled by the bankers. They created those two on the Left, and Hitler on the Right. They lost control on both counts, because Stalin and Hitler, although they were both monsters, were both also nationalists.

Socialism as described by people who aren't Illuminati shills, doesn't refer to the sort of mess that Uncle Joe created in Russia. It refers to a system that is based on what I anyway consider to be the inherent non-psychopathic impulse towards resource equality, specifically. This does not mean creative, cultural, geographic, or any other form of uniformity; it simply means that at a base level, nobody starves.


You charge that those who would see Free Markets that respect the Individual's sovereignty are psychopaths.


I do; and this is because even assuming their free market ideal, they would still consider starvation, homelessness, and similar socially pathological effects, as entirely acceptable byproducts of the system. No conservative I have ever spoken to would try to honestly claim that those things do not exist as byproducts of his ideal economic system; he simply claims that such effects are inevitable and unavoidable at best, or actually to be encouraged because they naturally kill off the "undesirables," or "worthless eaters," (i.e., social Darwinism) at worst. If that is not psychopathy, then I am not sure what is.


The very definition of psychopathy contradicts this, and in fact charges that the psychopath shows a nearly complete disregard for the rights of others.


That depends on what you define as the rights of the individual.


Capitalism and Communism, at least in terms of what we have actually seen implemented, are different euphemisms for entirely the same thing.


I would charge that those at the highest levels attempt to corrupt the current system in hopes of implementing socialism are in sociopaths who see socialism as a conduit with much less resistance to despotism, as I've explained in my earlier posts, and would claim the mantle of the despot for themselves or their ilk.


Agreed. The only element in which our opinion differs, is that you think they only do this with Communism or Socialism. I submit that they in fact do it with, and invented, both.


I in no way charge that this is your agenda, you are likely a very compassionate person who cares about the impoverished and would be willing to give up some or all of your Personal Property Rights to ensure the poor have the basic necessities of life.


I don't have much personal property. A laptop, two backpacks, a sleeping bag, and a tent. So it is entirely possible for me to talk about the abolition of private property, without being a hypocrite. I'm honestly not interested in being rich, at all. I've seen money do far too much harm to want that. I also know myself well enough, to be aware that I couldn't compete with Capitalism's psychopaths successfully on their own terms, even if I wanted to.

We have very different definitions of Individual Sovereignty. For close to 20 years now, my own definition of that concept, has been more or less identical to that depicted in Ben Stewart's film, Ungrip.

A sovereign individual in my own mind, is someone who understands that, in legal reality, so-called "sovereign nations," do not in fact exist. The entities which we consider such, are actually corporations, which are listed as such. Virtually all of the laws of said "nations," are in turn, in actuality statutes, or contractual agreements between the national corporation, and the proxy corporation which was founded on issuance of the individual's birth certificate. The only means that a given national corporation has for enforcing contracts with the individual (most of which were made without knowledge or consent, and therefore are, in fact, legally null and void) is pure, brute military force; which is precisely what the police are for.

The only legitimate basis of Law, as far as I am concerned, is the preservation of life; and that without protection from the various entirely spurious threats such as "terrorism," which Hitler and his contemporary spiritual descendants have invented. I do not consider Law that exists for any other purpose, to have any legitimacy.
edit on 7-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrvy
My personal "ethos" is the old law, common law. I believe that a society that was able to embrace that law would thrive. Common law is essentially that you do no harm, to yourself, to others, to the world around you. Cause no loss, to yourself, to others, or to the world around you, and don't cheat, take only what you need, and do so in a sustainable way.


Such a society would thrive. It would, however, also have no room for the psychopaths. Hence the reason why they will not allow it.


Capitalism breeds secrecy, conspiracy, poverty and death. Our comfortable capitalist lives, full of wonderful technology, ready to go food, comfort and ease only exists because of the suffering of other human beings.


I am beginning to think that the primary difference between those who do advocate corporate Capitalism and those who do not, is that said advocates do not object to the basis of their own welfare, being at others' (to the point of death) expense.


It's only when individuals do the right thing because it is the right thing, instead of what they stand to profit from it, that we can begin to call ourselves civilised.


If we truly began to do this, psychopathic rule would end very rapidly. Non-psychopathic humanity is not free or absolved of responsibility for psychopathic rule. The psychopaths stay in power primarily due to appealing to ego and the craving for convenience.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
is your argument, nothing of value could ever be created unless a large percentage of humans were in poverty and starving


There is nothing in my argument that implies that.



if all humans on the planet were to create a system of equality and prosperity, then nothing ever again would be able to be created, all humans minds wold suddenly become blank, all knowledge lost, all innovation stopped, all people would become equally miserable,.....


Equal opportunity, is good. Enforced "equality" is not good.



How did you get up on that high horse? to me it looks like a high chair...


Socialists perceptual and perpetual distortion is to see others "High" and needing to be "brought down". Hence one of the first thing socialist nations do is murder those who are well educated or have money or otherwise contribute to society. If they are better at anything socialists feel offended and insecure, so they kill them.



the elite way of thinking is primitive and savage..


The murder of the elites in Soviet Russia, in Cuba, in China, in North Korea, in Poland, in the Czech Republic, in Hungary always began with the statement "rich people are primitive and savage!"



in an equal world community would it be like....the idea of the iphone comes about, they are manufactured without 700% markup or more for profit, and everyone can afford one for 25 bucks? and it is top notch so the company wont need to put a new one out next week that has 1 extra little surprise?


Socialists wont understand why its good to pay more than 25 bucks for the iphone as it inspires and motivates you to put in a little more effort to earn the iphone. China saved its population from another bout of communist mass-starvation by implementing a few capitalistic ideas. One of these was to allow for the advertising of sell-phones, to awaken the desire of millions. The price of the cell phone was just out of reach for most chinese, but by trying to reach for it, they became stronger earners overall.



.. it would be easier on all people to cooperate....


A collectivist always talks about what ALL people should do. Dont you know thats where totalitarianism comes from? Why do you wish to impose your idea of what "cooperation" means, on ALL people? What if someone disagrees with your views on what cooperation means?



you like the challenge though, its cute, its fun,...


There is nothing fun or cute about reading this thread and replying to it. The ignorance in it is horrifying. Its Orwellian.[/b ]It tells me people have learned nothing from History and are destined to repeat it.



i hope you dont think of yourself anything higher then a sly chimp, for none of your virtues align with the potential righteous of man


The socialists real concern is that someone might be or is not "higher than" them.



i hate your spirit


Once you let go of your hatred, you will see the world differently.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Can we agree to the following then?

Capitalism and Socialism are both used by sociopaths to facilitate despotism.

Despotism is bad for all involved except the despot and his "friends".

Every person has the Right to Life, and to spend that Life in pursuit of what that person perceives as Happiness as long as that pursuit does not encroach upon the ability of another Individual to do the same.

Man, excepting the case of the sociopath, has an inherent inclination to compassion for his fellow Man.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by petrus4
 


I will agree that Free Markets with a small government structure to guarantee the rights of the Individual against other Individuals, corporations or the government itself is a hypothetical inasmuch as it no longer exists. It was a radical idea when it was founded and worked effectively for a century before the system was hijacked and gamed by those who would trample on the Rights of their fellow man for wealth.


The example of John D. Rockefeller (among others) taught me to want governmental regulation of individuals like him. That man was absolute, pure, pitch black ravening evil, and his descendants aren't much better. There is no major or systemic fraud of the 20th century, which led us to the current situation, that he was not a central figure in.


I'm sorry if you feel deflated because you think these are talking points I've been fed my entire life.


On the contrary. It is intensely gratifying (not to mention a relief) to occasionally encounter an advocate of free market economics, who is capable of more than three or so line, sarcastic, profane responses. Even if we do not agree, I appreciate your participation in this thread, and can only wish that more people with similar perspectives had your own eloquence.


You are allowed to have your own in my mind because in it you have the same Freedom and Liberty I do.


This is the fundamental difference between yourself and most people who have expressed similar opinions, that I have seen; that you are willing to grant that others have a right to disagree with you.

As a result of such, I would like to clarify something. In my own ideal scenario at least, I have nothing whatsoever against the idea of the advocates of Friedmanite or von Misen (to name two) economics, founding their own countries, where said systems could be entirely implemented. I will even say that I would be extremely curious to see how such systems would fare in a practical environment, as I do not believe that, as with Socialist ideas, Capitalism has yet been truly given such a test. The psychopaths have, in reality, prevented pure Capitalism to almost exactly the same degree as they have prevented genuine egalitarianism.

I do not believe in world federalism, for one moment; I simply know which type of society I wish to live in myself. Others are entirely free to choose for themselves, in my own mind; and in this we can see, that even those of us who might radically disagree, to a certain extent have a common motivation.

We must, at all costs, dethrone the psychopaths. If this is not done, then none of us who desire freedom in any form, can ever hope to obtain it. The psychopaths will not allow it. So people here who want to try to practically implement Capitalism's stated ideals, rather than the false substitute which they have in fact been given up to this point, could be entirely free to do so...but not under psychopathic rule.

I do not advocate revolution for this. Revolution is always a tool of the Illuminati themselves. All I advocate, is for individuals to become intimately, and eternally vigilant and aware of, the nature of the psychopaths and the tactics they use. Once this has been achieved, their rule will disintegrate without a single shot being fired. But it cannot happen before it.
edit on 7-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Addition to previous post:

Psychopaths and sociopaths are a reality, will continue to be, and therefore must be taken into consideration when considering ANY economic system.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by petrus4
 


Can we agree to the following then?

Capitalism and Socialism are both used by sociopaths to facilitate despotism.

Despotism is bad for all involved except the despot and his "friends".

Every person has the Right to Life, and to spend that Life in pursuit of what that person perceives as Happiness as long as that pursuit does not encroach upon the ability of another Individual to do the same.

Man, excepting the case of the sociopath, has an inherent inclination to compassion for his fellow Man.


We can. Absolutely and totally.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
Now that I have a little more time, let me show the error in so many thinking...

Imagine there is a Heaven or if you prefer a advanced alien society (since this is ATS), do you believe their economy will be Capitalistic? Do you think that in Heaven, you will find it necessary to give God $3 for some bread? If we are being visited by aliens, do the aliens have to worry about making lease payments on the vehicle they arrive here in?


Socialists like to start their elaborations with "Imagine this..." and then state a hypothetical state of utopia that does not exist in reality. Earth is not Heaven and probably wasnt meant to be. Socialism turned into hell on Earth because it tried to force heaven on earth.



Answering those silly questions made from the top of my head, does it not make it evident how primitive capitalism is? It's a barbaric economic model, buffed up and shined to APPEAR as the best thing since peanut butter! It allows JUST enough citizens to live DECENT lives (and have a DREAM) that the masses will fight for it tooth and nail.


In capitalistic democracies such as Western Europe and America, the greater majority have a decent standard of living. In socialist countries such as the Soviet Union, the majority had a low standard of living. Fact.



I have sold drugs in the past (yeah this deviates from the conversation) however just because I made a living from it and good money...it did not cause me to lose sight that it harms people!


I could name 1 Million products that are sold by capitalists that are beneficial to people. Just because you sold stuff that is harmful to people that is no reason to assume that capitalists do the same.



Even if we don't see it as prominently in America, our capitalism HARMS other countries!


As explained previously, most socialists cant tell the difference between their own concerns and those of the wider world. There is a lot of psychological projection involved. Hence, because you harmed the world through Business you believe others to so too. This is exemplified in this statement:



The same way the dope I sold HARMED families I didn't know. The dope I sold caused some little kid to grow up in a home where mom did not keep groceries in the kitchen or the lights on.




Our Capitalism is causing some kid in China to work 12 hours in a sweatshop to produce the Nikes we love.


With this you are saying that the kid is not responsible, his parents are not responsible, his boss is not responsible, instead, the general idea of capitalism is to blame. The corporations who allow sweatshops are to blame about 10% for allowing it. 90% of the responsibility lies with the kid and his father and the boss who are also allowing it. Blaming americans and capitalists for all problems is extremely lazy.



No socialism isn't designed to take money and resources from those who have it and redistribute it to the poor man! A properly implemented Socialist system, there wouldn't BE any blood sucker to take from! You see THERE...is where the problem begins with the "examples" of previous socialism!


Did you know that both Hitler and Stalin also liked to use the word "bloodsuckers" to describe people who were making money? Do you think thats a Coincidence?



I'm going to propose how socialism can be implemented (others feel free to join) and watch how the demons and others who are psycho will run as if they are vampires shown a cross with Yeshua on it! It will betray what they really are and who they REALLY work for even if they are unaware! Hopefully it will open a few eyes and fatten the ranks, all it takes is swallowing your pride and admitting you've been living a lie.


After destroying Africa, parts of South America, the Soviet Union and Eastern Block, China and NK, whats next on the socialist agenda?



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


It seems we agree about quite a bit. Rockefeller is a(n) [insert expletive here]. He was what I refer to as a conservative progressive, and was instrumental in moving America's economic system further toward corporatism, which is not what I advocate at all.

It is about which hypothetically ideal system we would want to live under after the sociopaths are stripped of power, not about which would best for all Man, that we disagree.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mc_squared
Evidentally it's genetic: right-wing brains are physically dominated by fear, while "left-wing" thought (whatever that even means any more) is geared towards complexity and problem solving.


Hasnt it been the socialists who continually warn us of "TPTB" and evil oppressors?

Another thing: Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with communism is a right-winger?



Virtually all right-wing arguments are dominated by fear-laced rhetoric - from all their McCarthyist rants about socialism, to their xenophobic views on foreign affairs, to their hypocritically alarmist opinions on supposed enivironmental "alarmism".


Prejudice contains the word "Pre" to indicate judgment before the merits of something are known. In the case of Socialism, which has cost more than 400 Million lives in the 20th Century alone, its not Pre-judice, its Post-judice if I may invent a new word.



It's not exactly reassuring to know this propensity for paranoid yahoo-ism comes straight from the physical make-up of their cranial matter, but I guess it does bring some strange peace of mind to at least know there is a tangible, discernible reason for it - other than just sheer unbelievable stupidity.


Yes of course, we are unbelievably stupid for suggesting that the system which killed 400 Million+ is somehow flawed.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by mc_squared
Evidentally it's genetic: right-wing brains are physically dominated by fear, while "left-wing" thought (whatever that even means any more) is geared towards complexity and problem solving.


Hasnt it been the socialists who continually warn us of "TPTB" and evil oppressors?

Another thing: Why do you assume that anyone who disagrees with communism is a right-winger?



Virtually all right-wing arguments are dominated by fear-laced rhetoric - from all their McCarthyist rants about socialism, to their xenophobic views on foreign affairs, to their hypocritically alarmist opinions on supposed enivironmental "alarmism".


Prejudice contains the word "Pre" to indicate judgment before the merits of something are known. In the case of Socialism, which has cost more than 400 Million lives in the 20th Century alone, its not Pre-judice, its Post-judice if I may invent a new word.



It's not exactly reassuring to know this propensity for paranoid yahoo-ism comes straight from the physical make-up of their cranial matter, but I guess it does bring some strange peace of mind to at least know there is a tangible, discernible reason for it - other than just sheer unbelievable stupidity.


Yes of course, we are unbelievably stupid for suggesting that the system which killed 400 Million+ is somehow flawed.


I'm a little new at this, but I think you fed a troll...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Socialists perceptual and perpetual distortion is to see others "High" and needing to be "brought down". Hence one of the first thing socialist nations do is murder those who are well educated or have money or otherwise contribute to society. If they are better at anything socialists feel offended and insecure, so they kill them.


I've noticed that there is a fairly common logical fallacy, which you appear to be afflicted with, Skyfloating. Said logical fallacy goes like this.

If a sufficiently large number of people who call themselves a Christian (Christians are used here purely as an example; any number of other possible examples could be used) commit mass murder, then despite both what we know about Jesus Christ's own aversion to violence, and the fact that the definition of the term Christian, is someone who emulates Christ's stated philosophy, said individuals must still, by definition, be regarded as Christian, purely because of their ostensible self-identification as such.

I have noticed that in the cases of both Capitalism and Communism, the same thing has been done. It was necessary for advocates of Capitalism to explain to people, after the 2008 financial crisis, that government bailouts of banks, was not consistent with Capitalist theory; but rather, that corporations which had performed sufficiently poorly as to become insolvent on their own, rightly deserved to cease to exist.

Likewise, Communism and/or Socialism have both been similarly, falsely demonised. As ANOK and others will testify, Socialist theory describes an economic system which includes, among other things, altruistic and life-affirming behaviour as its' basis. Given this, is it not completely logically completely absurd to consider murdering psychopaths such as Stalin or Mao, to be examples of this philosophy in practice?


the elite way of thinking is primitive and savage..



The murder of the elites in Soviet Russia, in Cuba, in China, in North Korea, in Poland, in the Czech Republic, in Hungary always began with the statement "rich people are primitive and savage!"


If I say that I consider psychopathic thinking to be inhuman (which I do) then it by no means logically follows (in fact, the opposite) that I am willing to extend that same inhumanity towards the psychopaths themselves. The psychopaths are by no means to be murdered. They would be quite happy to have us murder them; because they know very well, that the act of us murdering them would cause us to become them.

As such, said individuals who murdered the rich in those incidents, should not have done so, in my own view.


Socialists wont understand why its good to pay more than 25 bucks for the iphone as it inspires and motivates you to put in a little more effort to earn the iphone.


I remember that when cellular mobile phones first became available, there was a very brief period during which SMS text messaging was entirely free; and then it went to a few cents, and then to the current price. A similar thing occurred with the deliberate sabotage of the incandescent light bulb.

I have also noticed a tendency among conservative thinkers to associate almost more virtue with hard labour than virtually anything else; but for an equal length of time, I have strongly suspected that the reason why said conservatives do such, is actually an attempt to justify the degree of misery that said hard labour causes them. If they have to engage in work of a kind that they hate, there tends to be a perverse desire to ensure that everyone else has to experience such; because they understandably cannot tolerate the idea that someone else might have been fortunate enough, to be able to avoid such an experience.

My own father used to accuse me of self-indulgence, but as I knew very well, and often pointed out to him, his only basis for that accusation, was in truth envy as to our comparitive conditions.


China saved its population from another bout of communist mass-starvation by implementing a few capitalistic ideas. One of these was to allow for the advertising of sell-phones, to awaken the desire of millions. The price of the cell phone was just out of reach for most chinese, but by trying to reach for it, they became stronger earners overall.


I do not use any of Apple's products, or a mobile phone. I am also utterly devoid of desire for them.


A collectivist always talks about what ALL people should do.


I don't. Then again, I'm starting to think that people's perception of me here as a collectivist, is actually a misconception on their part.


i hate your spirit



Once you let go of your hatred, you will see the world differently.


I do not hate you, for what it is worth.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
In capitalistic democracies such as Western Europe and America, the greater majority have a decent standard of living. In socialist countries such as the Soviet Union, the majority had a low standard of living. Fact.




I'll let my man John refute you on this point. I think he'll be able to do so a bit more effectively than I can.



I could name 1 Million products that are sold by capitalists that are beneficial to people. Just because you sold stuff that is harmful to people that is no reason to assume that capitalists do the same.


You'd be naming the minority.


Seriously; I know that the theory states that people are supposed to be rewarded for the creation of real value, but if you're going to try and claim that Monsanto do that, be prepared for some hostile responses.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
My uncle, alongside many others were captured, and spent 15 years in a Cuban prison where he recieved regular beatings. They dislodged 3 vertebrae in his spine, and crushed one of his testicles from the beatings. Not to mention the broken bones. That uncle died about a year ago.


A number of the people who ended up in Gitmo probably experienced similar; but as we all know, they weren't white Americans, so they don't matter. The Bush administration knew well that an appeal to racism and otherisation was the reason why the American public would tolerate Guantanamo Bay's existence. It turned out to be a safe bet.

The bottom line is that given America's own actions, there is no incident of an American having been tortured or murdered, which cannot be accurately summarised as a case of the shoe having been on the other foot. The Black Hawk Down incident was a particularly graphic illustration of the fact that, while Uncle Sam might outperform any other nation on the planet when it comes to dishing it out, he isn't anywhere near at proficient at taking it. Given your inherent racism and your belief in Manifest Destiny, if there is one thing that Americans cannot tolerate, more than anything else, it is someone who dares to shoot back.

There are words for that. One of them is hypocrisy. Another is cowardice.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Trotsky was an illuminati plant? How so? Can you perhaps link me to something that has this in detail? I'm a fan of Trotsky's theory y'see and wish to read up on it...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by petrus4
 


Trotsky was an illuminati plant? How so? Can you perhaps link me to something that has this in detail? I'm a fan of Trotsky's theory y'see and wish to read up on it...


Well, one thing I've found recently on the subject, which is turning out to be veeeeery interesting, is a book called Red Symphony. (Google for it)

According to this, Joe and Vlad's not-so-excellent adventure in Russia, was pretty much the biggest false flag the Illuminati have given us yet. Turns out the poor old Russian on the street was fairly enthusiastic about the idea of organising his society into small, decentralised groups which would hypothetically be independent. (The "Soviets," which apparently would have been something roughly analogous to anarchist syndicates)

What they got instead, however, was a more traditional form of elitism in sheeps' clothing. It also so happens, that Karl Marx was in on the whole thing up to his armpits as well, all along. Some people in France (Paris) wanted to get a commune of their own started, and apparently Marx wasn't happy about the idea of said commune being independent of a centralised government. The people who wanted the syndicate (or "soviet") model (which is fairly close to what I like the idea of myself, truth be told) wanted said groups to be independent, but he didn't.

Further along on that theme, you have the founding of "the International." It's discussed very early on in Red Symphony, that because the average person wanted decentralised, localised, independent syndicates, the idea of international authority or representation of any kind, was completely antithetical and diametrically opposed to such, even moreso than centralised national government.

The Russian experiment was a giant hornswoggle from the beginning, but not in the way people think. Most in the West think it didn't work because of honest, but misguided idealism. The reality, as it turned out, was very dififerent. The deception of the Russian public was intentional from the beginning.

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is educational on this topic as well, albeit in more general terms.
edit on 7-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


I don't want to misrepresent Petrus4, but the way I took the statement was not these men were necessarily part of or knowingly working with the illuminati, but that the illuminati helped promote them and their ideas as they saw the potential for the abuse of and decent by society into despotism under those ideas.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by Tea4One
 


I don't want to misrepresent Petrus4, but the way I took the statement was not these men were necessarily part of or knowingly working with the illuminati, but that the illuminati helped promote them and their ideas as they saw the potential for the abuse of and decent by society into despotism under those ideas.


No; it was deliberate, unfortunately.



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join