Socialism/Communism and Capitalism are both Illuminati lies

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:28 PM

Originally posted by eboyd
as you can see here, Marx discusses the caste systems of times past, which seem quite similar to the caste system you propose.

I've also read Hindu refutations of Marx, which I agreed with.

In my opinion, Marx's view of social reality was an oversimplification.

To give you a recent example, when I moved to northern New South Wales, I took a Permaculture Design Course. After taking said course, I then attempted to stay at the farm where the course was held, in order to get used to working on a farm. I only lasted a week, before realising that realistically, it wasn't going to happen.

For one thing, I was bored out of my mind. Feeding chickens and ducks, pruning bamboo with a machete, and mixing compost is a waste of my intelligence. For another thing, I have one leg that is three inches longer than the other, which means that my pelvis (and therefore my spine) is constantly out of alignment. I cannot stand for long periods, and I especially cannot stand in one place, without rapidly (45 minutes at the most) beginning to experience severe pain, and in some cases injury which can last for days afterwards.

In other words, I am more capable of designing means by which such tasks could be performed by machine, than I am of physically performing them myself. I also truthfully view such tasks as being beneath the majority of human beings, not just myself. If I would have one fundamental point of divergence with Marx' theory, it would be that I consider it far better for the race to be collectively raised to the level of the burgeoise, than lowered to, and held down at, the level of the proletariat. That was also the point of the Hindu system.

I saw the film that was made of Animal Farm, as well as reading Orwell's own novel. I remember well the character of Boxer, the draft horse. He was depicted accurately, as the very soul of the Sudra or proletariat; the mindless, borderline mentally retarded, drunken, burden-carrying brute, who does not perform a single function that is beyond the mental capacity of a machine. Boxer as an individual character might have been depicted with kindness; and while I have met some of his varna who were kind, I have met just as many who were not.

For my part, I have tried to avoid animosity towards the real-life spiritual brethren of Boxer, although it has been diifficult, because at times they have chosen to make themselves my literally mortal enemy. One of them is carrying a potentially lethal vendetta towards me in the area where I am currently living, for no reason other than my refusal to accept his bullying of myself and others. This individual has apparently been a thorn in the side of the owner of the place where I am staying, for many years; so it is not due to my own behaviour.

The point is that Boxer was Marx's hero. Boxer and his ilk were intended to be the beneficiaries of Marx's ideal society. Marx's apologists can say otherwise, but I have seen the truth. Marxism is not about the removal of caste; it is simply about a re-ordering of it to allow Boxer's supremacy.

The central problem with that idea, is that Boxer is the lowest common denominator. Boxer represents, ultimately, the very worst, the most degenerate, and the most animalistic that human society is capable of producing. The Sudra are not to be hated, no; but neither should they be revered. The goal should be to raise the human species out of Boxer's condition whenever possible, not to doom the rest of us to it.

The bottom line here, is that Capitalism and Communism/Socialism were both created by the Illuminati, in order to serve their agenda of the eventual extinction of all carbon based life on this planet. As a result, neither of these systems of thought can provide answers; they simply lead to human beings engaging in efforts which ultimately perpetuate the cabal's own interests.

Does that mean I believe that there is no way out? Not at all. There is an answer.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:35 PM
reply to post by petrus4

This is interesting and all, but I couldn't help notice nowhere in your post did you precisely define socialism, communism, or capitalism. You assume their definitions are self-evident. They aren't.

posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:28 PM

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
reply to post by petrus4

This is interesting and all, but I couldn't help notice nowhere in your post did you precisely define socialism, communism, or capitalism. You assume their definitions are self-evident. They aren't.

For me, Capitalism has a few different meanings.

a} The assumption that scarcity is inevitable, and that it has to be regulated in some way, in order to ensure that someone gains access to scarce commodities. Money (usually fiat currency) is used as the means of doing this; although the down side of the presumption of scarcity, is that scarcity is actually assumed to be a good thing, because it's the only way people can make money. So even commodities which do not have to be scarce (creativity and Internet bandwidth, as two examples) are artificially made scarce, so that they will make money.

There are some commodities, on the other hand, which genuinely are unavoidably scarce, and for those, money as a system of regulation can work.

b} Competitive, individual self-interest is assumed to be the primary (and sometimes the only) motivation of human beings. This is usually only true in the case of psychopaths; it isn't true in the case of non-psychopaths. An important element of this, is what has been called social Darwinism, at least as applied to corporations. In purely Capitalistic terms, corporations which become insolvent, cease to exist. The government bailouts of banks are not a manifestation of Capitalism as described by its' theorists.

The system of letter grading, used for students within school systems, predates Capitalism; but could be considered an example of Capitalistic or Darwinist thinking. Other examples are cases of athletically or intellectually gifted students becoming leaders of the social hierarchy. I believe that the Columbine Massacre was a case of class warfare along those lines, with the leaders of the social hierarchy being shot by those who inhabited the bottom of it.

c} The assumption that a single individual or small group of individuals can hypothetically reach a point of owning literally all forms of property in existence. This is the Capitalist definition of freedom, and it is considered by them to be a good thing. It also logically follows, that most of the time, said property is not used by those who actually own it. They simply charge those who use it, for the right of use, and derive income on that basis.

I define Socialism, conversely, in the following ways.

a} A desire for equality is assumed as an element of human nature. As far as non-psychopaths are concerned, I agree with this. Examples from the behaviour of other animals in nature, are often cited.

b} There is an emphasis on non-competition. Capitalism focuses on self-interested competition, and socio-economic success, which in theory is supposed to be on the basis of intellectual or physical merit, but which in practice usually turns out to be based on pathological narcissism and the ability to manipulate society.

Socialism on the other hand, is where the recent trend toward awards simply for participation in a given activity, as one example, has come from. The Left places a very strong emphasis on victimhood, and the concept of the hate crime (which I consider rationally illegitimate, and almost always desired from a basis of hysterical emotionalism rather than logic, for the record) is another classic example of Socialist thinking.

While in a Capitalist scenario, it can be said that the proverbial fecal matter rises to the top, this occurs in primarily amoral or psychopathic terms. In a Socialist context it also happens; but where in more Capitalist terms, the narcissism or perceived beauty of Paris Hilton will put her in the spotlight, in Socialist terms the spotlight is occupied generally by whoever can scream the loudest, or most effectively and sympathetically portrays themselves as a victim. Again, the gay rights movement is a great place to look for examples of this.

So while in Capitalist terms, the corporation who posts the biggest profit in a given financial year (irrespective of their progress in also rendering us all extinct, due to environmental destruction) is given the metaphorical gold medal, in the Socialist mindset, said gold medal is likely to go to whoever Amnesty International can identify as having been the most brutally tortured by one of the Capitalist countries, during said period. Either way, real merit is avoided entirely.

c} Possession is nine tenths of the Law. Whoever owns property or the means of production, is whoever uses it. In practical terms, this is much more useful than the kind of redundant ownership which Capitalism advocates.

(I'm out of room, but I may continue this later)

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 12:06 AM
I'm about 19 minutes into this and so far it is pretty interesting, some of the things being discussed about free will, self governance and consent are things I am passionate about. How did you find out about this video?

I am going to finish viewing the rest of the video tomorrow, but thanks for posting it, it gives me a few things to think about for sure.

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 02:46 AM

Originally posted by Mijamija
I'm about 19 minutes into this and so far it is pretty interesting, some of the things being discussed about free will, self governance and consent are things I am passionate about. How did you find out about this video?

It's the third in a series that Ben: Stewart has produced. The first is called Esoteric Agenda, and the second is called Kymatica. You can find both of them on YouTube. The first film gives a description of the problem. The second film gives a description of the solution, in theoretical terms. The third film, Ungrip, offers a case study of the solution being practically applied.

I am going to finish viewing the rest of the video tomorrow, but thanks for posting it, it gives me a few things to think about for sure.

I am glad it is helping you.

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 09:37 AM
"non violent revolution of consciousness"

The concept of what a "citizen" is

How we enter into a contract with our govt when we apply for a SSN or drivers license

These things I found to be very interesting, and overall many questions and thoughts crossed my mind while watching the video.

One small difference is rob dropped out of the Canadian system, so much of his focus related to Canadian law, however, as he explained, the fundamentals are the same in all former British territories, including the USA.

Also, he was very honest about how difficult this process has been for him, which I imagine is one reason why others do not follow his lead, this kind of life change requires a huge amount of effort, which I think most people are not willing to exert.

But even more challenging than the effort, is the fact most people do not even know the "laws of the land" well enough to exert themselves in this way if they even wanted to.

I remember "citizenship" from when I was in elementary school. It was something to be encouraged. Kids even got good citizenship awards at assembly ceremonies. But I never really understood what the legal or even common definition of "citizen" was.

Then as I got older I understood "citizen" was someone who belonged to a country and I have struggled with that concept ever since, because in my heart, I belong to many countries, I belong in my heart to wherever my feet carry me.

There is so so much tied to the ideas in this video. Concepts like freedom and what freedom means in our modern society. The responsibility of being sovereign and the consequences of no longer being tied to the governmental structure pose serious questions.

The upside is freedom, the downside is not having any recourse under the law.

But the thing that still blows my mind is the idea that we do have a choice. I wonder how many people even know that is an option?

Petrus....I'd like to hear some more of your thoughts on this topic and what drove you to explore these kinds of ideas. For me, it goes back my personal ideas about anarchy, but I'm curious as to why this topic interests you?

Also, what you mentioned about socialism being the "lowest common denominator" in charge is interesting to me, I have a few hang ups with socialism of which being that socialist structures are only as good as the society which creates them.

Again, thanks for sharing!

posted on Feb, 21 2012 @ 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Mijamija

Petrus....I'd like to hear some more of your thoughts on this topic and what drove you to explore these kinds of ideas. For me, it goes back my personal ideas about anarchy, but I'm curious as to why this topic interests you? - Although I've started another thread here where I answer some of your questions, with a new link to Ungrip, for people who haven't seen it; I will say a little more in this thread.

As a three planet, eleventh house solar Aquarian with a lot of Plutonian influence, freedom is a subject which instinctively has always held a lot of interest for me; as well as understanding the relationships between freedom and responsibility, or chaos and order. I've never been a member of the mainstream workforce, as I instinctively understood as a teenager that it was simply a form of slavery. I've done a lot of research into a lot of different topics over the last 20 years, but probably one of the most important books for me, in hindsight, was the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

That book basically describes the precise strategy that the global cabal (who are not exclusively, or even necessarily primarily, Jewish) have used, and are using, for the purposes of enslaving the rest of humanity, and ultimately rendering all life on this planet, potentially extinct. Another film that I'd really recommend watching along those lines is Esoteric Agenda, which was actually the first in a trilogy of films, of which Ungrip is the third. They're all made by the same man; Ben: Stewart.

This film really goes to the heart of the matter, in terms of describing our current problem. It's somewhat horrifying in places, but it is very important information; it's basically a description of what humanity is currently up against.

As a result of having read the Protocols, although I have looked into Marxism and left anarchism, I ultimately have not accepted them. The reason why is because the Protocols described how the cabal have instituted two primary economic/social ideologies; a "mainstream" paradigm, (Capitalism) and an "alternative," paradigm, (Marxism/Socialism/left anarchism) and that both ultimately serve the cabal's long term interests.

So, once I realised that Marxist and reactionary anarchism wasn't a solution, I started looking around for what could be. I ended up taking a Permaculture Design Course last September, and my goal is to also become a certified user of the BSD UNIX operating system. The new thread I've made and linked to above, contains a link to the film Garbage Warrior, which describes the Earth Ship; a new architectural design from Mike Reynolds, which allows rapid deployment of liveable accomodation for people, and is what Rob used himself, to build his own house. I started to realise that ideologies and "isms," of whatever form, aren't the answer; practical, proactive, and creative action is.

I was influenced by Mike Reynolds' case study in Garbage Warrior of going to a tsunami swept island off the coast of India, in that I realised that my 15 odd years of experience with open source UNIX (Linux and to a lesser extent BSD, although BSD is my preferred system) could synergise with Mike's own architectural work, to hopefully provide very low cost computing infrastructure for people in a disaster situation, in order to offer communication and tracking of survivors, among other things.

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:37 AM
reply to post by petrus4

"Captialism is communism with money."

Dr. Farkwire

"In away he is right it revolves around the higherarky be achieved by one's wealth, not one's success.
Socialism has its set backs in it does not included the total benefit for society as a whole but benefit
to the fit of society."

Memphis Raines

new topics
top topics

log in