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: 60
92
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ProgressiveSlayer
 


Never mind lol




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


So the Russian people wanted something similar to the Articles of Conderation minus the weak federal government and instead got conned into communism via nationalized socialism?

***In no way am I equating nationalized socialism to the national socialist party.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Do you think stalin and hitler as strong nationalist were really part of the illuminati? I have a hard time believing that anyone with those ideals would buy into the illuminati's thirst for a one-world government. Unless perhaps they took the one-world government agenda and wished to see it applied to their respective countries because of their nationalism? Now I've confused myself...

If the latter were true then why allow FDR to enter WWII? Was FDR not part of the illuminati? Or was his mission to institute the precedent for federal government social programs that now threaten to break the back of the US? Did he break with the illuminati to enter WWII because he desired for America to become the one-world government and truly didn't see the potential problems the social programs could create? Then why help the rest of Europe?

My head hurts now...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by petrus4
 


So the Russian people wanted something similar to the Articles of Conderation minus the weak federal government and instead got conned into communism via nationalized socialism?

***In no way am I equating nationalized socialism to the national socialist party.


Essentially, yes. The individual syndicates probably would have run on a system similar to this:-

www.countercurrents.org...

This was tried in America during the Depression. Apparently it was working fairly well, but the government didn't like it, for obvious reasons. The thing with a system like this though, is that like a Capitalist economy in ideal terms (IMHO, anywayz) it HAS to be small, if it is going to work well.

The one pattern that you will always see with the cabal, very consistently, is greater and greater federalism; both national, and then international. They never, ever allow small-scale, localised autonomy; it is the antithesis of what they want. This is partly also because they know that human cognition can't scale that large, so accountability is impossible.

More importantly though, it's because psychopaths are only 5% of the global population; so if they don't organise globally themselves, they've got absolutely no chance of controlling the rest of us. The only reason why they really do even then, is because of how good they've become at brainwashing soldiers and cops.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


What an interesting thought then. I'll have to put it in the 'to-read' section.
edit on 7-2-2012 by Tea4One because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

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.


The idea that the merits of something is known by its results, or as Jesus said, a tree is known by its fruits is not a logical fallacy. If there was genocide by Christians, then that can be traced back to a flaw in their thinking. If there is genocide in Socialism, that can be traced back to a flaw in their thinking. That flaw, in both cases, is called collectivism and its inherent desire to impose ones own beliefs upon others.



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?


Socialism has not been "falsely demonised". The nice and lovely sounding words of the socialists who post on this thread are a recipe for more genocide in the future, as I have amply shown. When a socialist in this thread calls workers and employees "slaves", he might not see how that attitude will later lead to incredible sociological difficulties, but for many of us it is obvious. Someone, who of his own free will agrees to work for another individual (called employer) is not a slave. So we see LIE inherent within the very basic structure of the nice sounding words. If the building blocks are flawed, the whole building collapses. The blueprint for mass-destruction and mass-murder is already built in to these wonderful sounding ideas.

Many claim that socialism "sounds nice on paper, but doesnt work in reality". But it doesnt sound nice on paper and it doesnt sound nice in this thread. For every error that a capitalist spouts, a socialist spouts ten errors.

To demonize means to make something look much worse than it is. With socialism we do not have to make it look worse than it is, its self-evident.



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.


We dont believe that having too much stuff for free is satisfying to the human spirit.



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.


In my opinion smart work is better than hard work.



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.


I dont believe that engaging in hard work that one hates is a path to a good life or good income. The working class tends to get angry at capitalists precisely because they dont see us suffering and dealing with work that is generally hated. Hard work on something you love, on the other hand, always yields good results for yourself and your community.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
I'm a little new at this, but I think you fed a troll...


Thanks to my capitalist endeavors I have enough surplus food to also feed the disadvantaged.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProgressiveSlayer
reply to post by petrus4
 



Do you think stalin and hitler as strong nationalist were really part of the illuminati?


Hitler was an outsource. The cabal never put anybody who is truly in with them, in the public eye. The ones you get to see are what they call, "men of straw." Disposable front men who they can manipulate by proxy, basically.

For that, they will generally get a relatively bush league psychopath, but someone who looks at least reasonably promising. They usually like good orators; they tend to need someone who can rabble rouse. For all of his other obvious issues, Hitler did give a great speech.

Said frontpeople will generally have one or more handlers, who might in turn report to yet another intermediary, and it will be that intermediary who reports to the cabal directly. The cabal are never ever seen directly in the public spotlight. They are very particular about that.


I have a hard time believing that anyone with those ideals would buy into the illuminati's thirst for a one-world government.


That's because such a person generally won't have a clue as to what they're really buying into. That is actually why Hitler and Stalin both became uncontrollable in the end, and had to be disposed of. They were both psychopaths, but they were also both sincere nationalists. The cabal don't like that. They want globalism.

Stalin was actually something of an accident, who got where he did because of his own ambition. That happens sometimes; and it's also part of the reason why they had Trotsky babysit him. Stalin wasn't actually one of theirs.

It's a lot like Occupy. Occupy is made up of people who think they have their own agenda; they'll just get quietly approached by a representative from somebody like Soros, and asked if they'd like a few hundred thousand bucks or so on the side, in order to help the cause. In return, said courier will probably name a few things he'd like done by the group; but he will be careful to only choose objectives, which the group members can plausibly think that they're already persuing by themselves anywayz. The whole "leaderless," crap in Occupy's case is probably an example of a PR line which Soros or someone similar gave them.


If the latter were true then why allow FDR to enter WWII? Was FDR not part of the illuminati?


The "leaders," themselves never are. They always have around four levels between themselves and the cabal, as mentioned. Sometimes the puppet will be sympathetic with the cabal's goals, but that assumes that said puppet really knows anything about them, which is generally very unlikely. The cabal know exactly what would happen to them if their existence was learned of by the general public, so they are very careful to make sure that it isn't.


Or was his mission to institute the precedent for federal government social programs that now threaten to break the back of the US?


The cabal play what we think of as Capitalism and Communism off against each other, and they do so in a cyclic manner. The point is though, that if you look into it, centralised state control of everything has gradually crept up on us, even in the supposedly Capitalist US. The Fed and the initial 1913 gold amnesty is a perfect example. The Depression was also completely engineered. They crash democracies, so that when everything deflates, they can buy it all dirt cheap. It's how they own progressively more and more of a given country.


Did he break with the illuminati to enter WWII because he desired for America to become the one-world government and truly didn't see the potential problems the social programs could create? Then why help the rest of Europe?


The cabal funded both sides of WW2 under the table. The cabal loves war, for several different reasons. One is because it makes loads of money for them. Another is because it produces a lot of the negative energy which they need to literally physically survive. A third reason is because war shakes everything up, which is also why they like revolutions, too. When everything is up in the air, they take advantage of non-psychopathic confusion and inertia to seize all of it.
edit on 7-2-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


"Zeitgeist" as well as "The Protocols of the Wise Elders of Zion" are full of inaccuracies and deliberate distortions. Lies cause suffering. Truth causes relief.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The idea that the merits of something is known by its results, or as Jesus said, a tree is known by its fruits is not a logical fallacy. If there was genocide by Christians, then that can be traced back to a flaw in their thinking.


The flaw is calling people who commit genocide Christian. I actually like the term Islamist, for that reason, actually; as in, someone who self-identifies as a Muslim, but who can't rightly be considered one because of how they behave.


Socialism has not been "falsely demonised". The nice and lovely sounding words of the socialists who post on this thread are a recipe for more genocide in the future, as I have amply shown.


Genocide occurs because of psychopathic behaviour, not non-psychopathic ideology. When psychopaths create ideology themselves, they generally only do so in order to try and justify their (insane) acts.


When a socialist in this thread calls workers and employees "slaves", he might not see how that attitude will later lead to incredible sociological difficulties, but for many of us it is obvious.


If a Capitalist in this thread was to refer to people as "useless eaters," would you associate his attitude with Capitalism as a whole?


Someone, who of his own free will agrees to work for another individual (called employer) is not a slave.


It is a more civilised progression of the concept, it is true. But as Southern slaveowners themselves observed, that which is hired, is generally not cared for as well as that which is owned. The incentive is not there to the same degree. You might want to try reading about Rockefeller Sr equipping his strikebreakers with machine guns, as one earlier example of problems with the "free employee," theory.


Many claim that socialism "sounds nice on paper, but doesnt work in reality". But it doesnt sound nice on paper and it doesnt sound nice in this thread. For every error that a capitalist spouts, a socialist spouts ten errors.


If you're primarily focused on the genocide strawman, then sure; and yes, it is a strawman, and was carried out for just that purpose, among others. The cabal operate on a much longer term basis than you probably know about.


We dont believe that having too much stuff for free is satisfying to the human spirit.


I'm surprised that anybody in America would know about whether it is satisfying or not, truthfully; it's not like it's something that happens over there all that often.



I dont believe that engaging in hard work that one hates is a path to a good life or good income. The working class tends to get angry at capitalists precisely because they dont see us suffering and dealing with work that is generally hated. Hard work on something you love, on the other hand, always yields good results for yourself and your community.


This perspective is the exception in my experience on this forum, (and among conservative Americans in general) rather than being the rule.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating Someone, who of his own free will agrees to work for another individual (called employer) is not a slave.


> Implying Capitalist system of wage labour is voluntary.
> Implying workers have an option not to work.

Workers don't have an option. They work for bourgeoisie or they die. The proletariat must sell it's labour as a commodity otherwise s/he doesn't get food, water or shelter. No system is voluntary.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by petrus4
 


"Zeitgeist" as well as "The Protocols of the Wise Elders of Zion" are full of inaccuracies and deliberate distortions. Lies cause suffering. Truth causes relief.


I agree that lies cause suffering. I also agree that the Zeitgeist movies have plenty of distortions in various places. Using discernment is important pretty much anywhere. There are elements of truth within them, as well as lies.

The truth is generally testable; so it is possible for anybody to do so. If you haven't actually read the Protocols, I'm not likely to consider your opinion authoritative, as to whether they are the truth or not; and even then, I likely wouldn't. I do my own research.

I would also appreciate it if, in response to that, you refrained from giving me the tired excuse that you don't have time, and so it is necessary to rely on the word of third parties. The only result that said response is likely to generate, is to piss me off.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   


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?


I figured my idea of cooperation would be aligned with its definition.. the opposite of conflict.... do you cooperate with your family, your friends, your coworkers, the people you buy your things from, your neighbors, in school with your teachers and classmates, do you cooperate with anyone, your self, do you cooperate with the thousands of laws and codes, .,.,. you are completely free,.,. i am talking about an ideal society,,. maybe something that will have to be thought about and implemented in the future, a society that if you were going to be born on earth, but you didnt know where or as who or what, a society that you think would be the most wise, to create the most peace, prosperity and well being to the citizens of this planet..

also the stuff with trying to say how i am low and incapable,.,. its funny because you are just trying to make yourself out to be a victim or something... socialists have this problem, this discrepancy, this complex, they all suck, they are all weak and dumb people, they are all jealous of me and the rich... when i talk about the elite, if you had millions of dollars you are not the elite i am speaking of., im talking of the 13 families who rule the world, who own most of the resources and money... "socialists always think there are some rulling elite,. its a complex when they were kids they were scared of their fathers and the bogey man, so now they are still infants who are scared of this father figure government that doesn't exist,, thats why they like government, and they just want to control everyone, make sure no one is miserable"






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.


id say i am trying to advocate a change to the current system, for all of human history has been the same repeating history...... what is it that i haven't learned that i am repeating?



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

i think nothing of the sort,, i look at all as equal... i only wish the all mighty capitalist didn't need so many people to look down on




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


How many different ways do you think there are to see the world? do you think i dont have the choice to dwell in a microcosm ignorantly bliss to the world around...... the actual answer is i dont.... because i have seen the truth of this world,,,,, i have seen the natural beauty, the infinite potential of the human mind and spirit,, i have lived 1000 life times in a moment, on a park bench, in the city.....i have traveled, i have worked, i have loved, i have lived...... i have learned to hate the wicked ways of the world, and can not fool myself into unseeing them



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
The flaw is calling people who commit genocide Christian. I actually like the term Islamist, for that reason, actually; as in, someone who self-identifies as a Muslim, but who can't rightly be considered one because of how they behave.


Genocide is conducted on the basis of the belief that a certain group of people need to be erased. This thread alone contains hundreds of calls for capitalists, corporatists and other successful people to be removed. Because so many "Zeitgeist" and "Zion Protocols" and "OWS" followers call for such, it will certainly happen in the future, just like it has been happening in the past few thousand years.



Genocide occurs because of psychopathic behaviour, not non-psychopathic ideology. When psychopaths create ideology themselves, they generally only do so in order to try and justify their (insane) acts.


Behavior is caused by ones ideologies, beliefs, thoughts. In 1939 people kept talking about the evil jewish capitalists and the evil jewish bankers. They disseminated and promoted the "Protocols of the Wise Elders of Zion", just as you are doing it.



If a Capitalist in this thread was to refer to people as "useless eaters," would you associate his attitude with Capitalism as a whole?


No. But I would associate the labeling of workers as "slaves" to be socialist as a whole because its what Karl Marx himself (not to mention all of his followers) teaches. "Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains" already implies they are in chains. Because Marx was a demagogue, he leaves the reader no choice but to assume they did not agree to become workers out of their own free will.

In your example there is a capitalist referring to people as "useless eaters"...which is not a term or belief expressed by any of the great capitalist authors.



If you're primarily focused on the genocide strawman, then sure; and yes, it is a strawman, and was carried out for just that purpose, among others. The cabal operate on a much longer term basis than you probably know about.


The implication here is that genocide is not the result of false ideologies but again of those vague "powers that be" that socialists always refer to.




This perspective is the exception in my experience on this forum, (and among conservative Americans in general) rather than being the rule.


Apart from Zeitgeist, OWS and Protocols-of-Zion, contemporary marxist brainwashing tries to indoctrinate the idea that anyone who denounces Communism/Socialism is a conservative. All across this discussion board, anti-communists are referred to as "conservatives", automatically, without thinking. Thats how far gone marxists are.

I`ll repeat what Ive repeated in hundreds of other discussions with socialists: I am not a conservative, never have been and never will be.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


I agree that, as a generality, you must labor in some way or it will be impossible to survive. You either have to labor to produce your own potable water, food and shelter or you have to do something for which someone is willing to trade you the means to obtain these. In the past this was done by barter (now apparently illegal in the US by the way) but now by money. The family structure and human compassion are the only things that in the past have kept those who are unable to labor for themselves from perishing. Do you believe that humans have become so corrupt of spirit that these principles should be shoved aside in favor of force to accomplish those means?

I should note that now, the monetary system is in fact being manipulated by people, and while I will not refer to the Citizens in America as slaves who have no choice in how they labor, it is leading tyranny under a despot. However, just as you ask me not to associate communism with socialism, please also do not associate the corporatism that ails America today with the Free Markets that respect the Individuals Right to Self Determination I advocate. Neither is represented today, and to do so is largely hypocritical.

The "useless eater" debate is a tiresome one to me. The only "useless eaters" I see would be there very rare occasion where someone is completely able to labor in a meaningful way, that is produce food, goods or meaningful thought, but refuses to even try at all of them, and has no family structure willing to help him, and is such a detestable human that no one is willing to show any compassion toward him. I honestly don't even know anyone that fits that description, but were such a person to exist what possible contribution to society could they make? This person would either, when push comes to shove, find a way to produce enough to survive or would die seemingly from sheer stupidity. This person has their Natural Right to Life and to pursue whatever they call Happiness. He also must accept responsibility for those actions. No one took his Life away except himself in this case, and no one made him do anything contrary to his pursuit of Happiness. I cannot advocate laws that intend to protect the Individual from Himself, nor can I promote a system that would promote this behavior.

As stated earlier, the Individual should have choice in how they labor, but Natural Law mandates that whether or not to labor is never a choice. A Man in Nature must labor in some way to survive, or depend on those around him to care for him. If those around him see the choice not to labor when he is able as a violation of their own Liberty, causing unjust and undo hardship to support him when he can support himself, the the Man is forced to labor. While you see this as an act bereft of compassion, it is, in fact, derived from the Natural Order of Life. It is my belief Man is inherently good, and that those in need of compassion will receive it if the need brought to the knowledge of the People. I do not believe the Peoples' Individual Sovereignty should be offended by a forced act of compassion by any authority other than that of their conscience



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
The truth is generally testable; so it is possible for anybody to do so. If you haven't actually read the Protocols, I'm not likely to consider your opinion authoritative, as to whether they are the truth or not; and even then, I likely wouldn't. I do my own research.


I read the protocols when I was 16 years old and immediately recognized that it was designed to vilify jews.The idea of a competition-less power that orchestrates world events has been debunked time and time again.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One

> Implying workers have an option not to work.



A human has the option who to work for, where to work, how to work, how long to work, what to work on.

Well, no, not according to leftist academics who say that humans have no free will but are instead determined by their genes.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I figured my idea of cooperation would be aligned with its definition.. the opposite of conflict.... do you cooperate with your family, your friends, your coworkers, the people you buy your things from, your neighbors, in school with your teachers and classmates, do you cooperate with anyone, your self, do you cooperate with the thousands of laws and codes, .,.,. you are completely free,.,. i am talking about an ideal society,,. maybe something that will have to be thought about and implemented in the future, a society that if you were going to be born on earth, but you didnt know where or as who or what, a society that you think would be the most wise, to create the most peace, prosperity and well being to the citizens of this planet..


I cooperate with some people and with others I am in conflict, is it is natural. For example, if someone is shooting at my window, then that is a person I am in disagreement (conflict) with. I do not desire to cooperate with that person because he imposes his will upon me.

The "better society" you dreamed of, and Pol Pot dreamed of, does not come about by forcing everyone to cooperate.



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

Originally posted by ImaFungi
i am speaking of., im talking of the 13 families who rule the world, who own most of the resources and money...


There is no competition-less collective that rules the world.



id say i am trying to advocate a change to the current system, for all of human history has been the same repeating history...... what is it that i haven't learned that i am repeating?


It is not the "system" that needs changing, it is oneself. As Gandhi said: BE the change you want to see.



i look at all as equal...


That much is clear. Do you know what merit is?




i have seen the truth of this world,

i have learned to hate the wicked ways of the world, and can not fool myself into unseeing them



A tad pessimistic, dont you think?

When you look within, do you see anything to improve there?
edit on 7-2-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Natural Rights come with Natural Responsibilities. If an Individual wishes to maintain his Natural Right to his Life, his responsibility becomes to labor in some way to sustain it. If an Individual is not born with the capacity to fulfill his Responsibility to sustain Life, the inherent nature of Man will drive the compassion to of his fellow Man to aid that Individual in his Responsibility, as any Man who believes in the Natural Rights of all other Individuals will reason that a Natural inability to fulfill the Natural Responsibilities for himself does not disqualify a Man from the Natural Right of Life. In this way, only the deliberate choice of a capable Individual to shirk his Natural Responsibility results in the offense of his Natural Right of Life.
edit on 7-2-2012 by ProgressiveSlayer because: wording



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join