I joined the Communist Party

reply to post by petrus4


The idea of the Rothschilds financing Marx & Co. helps explain how they successfully melded the "Marxist" based concepts and the goals of "Corporatism".

Marx & Co. was a very marketable concept at the time.

Marx & Co. were hired guns.

There are theories that say Marx himself was in fact a distant relative of the Rothschild family bloodline.

"Corporatism" and "Marxism" concepts have some similar goals.

Collectivism is one.

Both like to consolidate and eliminate competition and individualism.

The "Marxist" government styles do this through centralized bureaucracies.
The multinational corporations do this by eliminating competition through monopolies.

Both work together to consolidate the wealth patterns.

With the largest international corporations (including banks) all being inter-owned by each other through the investment institutions who own the largest blocks of stock, and the governments who continuously provide the correct environments for corporatism, I would say they are very close to achieving the end goals.

The central bank system is evidence.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The Rockefellers funded the Bolsheviks, so don't leave out the corporate funding of that model.

The Rothschilds were also behind Marx. That's the really fun part.

Mind you, the reason why I don't have problems with ANOK, is because generally speaking she quotes other people. Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky were shills of the cabal. Kropotkin wasn't, from what I've been able to gather...and Bakunin at least doesn't sound as though he was, either.

What ANOK is trying to explain to you, is that there is a form of Socialism that isn't necessarily affiliated with the cabal. The problem is, however, that at this point the words Socialism and Communism have been sufficiently contaminated by the cabal, that we probably need a new one. The problem with that, however, is that the cabal will then just corrupt that word as well. That's what they do.

I'm sorry, did you really think that Russian communism was tainted by the "cabal" and therefore was not the "real" communism?
Communism itself is a product of the cabal, so what difference does it make? The NWO is communism. It is a bunch of globalists inserting themselves as rulers over the rest of the world and they have the money and the power to do it. Everything else is secondary.
Who are the Globalists? They are occultists, they are the Fallen Angels reembodying lifetime after lifetime in the same family bloodlines.

reply to post by ANOK


Communism did not fail in Russia because of fascists. Remember, the Russians were our allies in WWII against Germany. It was not till after the war ended that the Cold War with Russia began. It was only later on, when Solzhenitsyn wrote the "Gulag Archipelago" that the Russian communist gulags were exposed for all the world to see. Everything was hidden by the KGB and the Politburo.
Russian Communism failed without the help of Germany.

Originally posted by Tadeusz
The typical family generally shares things very frequently. Living space, dinner table, food, and so on. Who here has ever lived in a family? A form of communism perhaps. What if several families formed a "hamlet" where each family operated like an individual within a larger family? That would be communism on a larger scale. What if several "hamlets" form a "town" and several "towns" form a "city" and so on until the world is one big family? It would be worldwide communism as Marx envisioned it.

edit on 13-6-2012 by Tadeusz because: (no reason given)

That's all very lovely, but Karl Marx viewed the nuclear family as an impediment to the communist society and communists and Marxists have sought to eliminate or reduce the influence of the family unit since. They find rather interesting ways of doing that, including redefining what a family is, creating economic chaos so as to force the family to recombine in different ways and forcing a two parent paycheck to make ends meet, taking the mother out of the home and into the workplace. The UN Treaty of the Rights of the Child constitute further degradation of the family unit by wresting authority and control away from the parents and to the State, and in this case, the World Court.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by petrus4

 

The idea of the Rothschilds financing Marx & Co. helps explain how they successfully melded the "Marxist" based concepts and the goals of "Corporatism".

Exactly the point. The entire reason why Marx was able to point out the flaws of Capitalism as accurately as he was, was because he had direct access to the people who originally implemented that paradigm.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
That's all very lovely, but Karl Marx viewed the nuclear family as an impediment to the communist society and communists and Marxists have sought to eliminate or reduce the influence of the family unit since.

Karl Marx was the initial instrument for disseminating an ideology which, if it is allowed to do so, will ultimately result in human extinction. This was by direct, deliberate design.

That doesn't mean that I am an advocate of Capitalism. Read Red Symphony. Both originate from the same source, and both are intended to shepherd humanity towards global dictatorship, and ultimately, extinction as mentioned.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Marx & Engels:

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation into a mere money relation.

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.

This was the bourgeoisie definition of "family": a collection of money makers which happen to be of the same blood. This definition of "family" has no purpose. Let's say you have a blood family in which the eldest son makes more money than the rest combined. Then, the choice which leaves him the better off monetarily is to abandon them. Communism seeks to abolish this type of "family" and not any other type. It is a popular misconception.

Another common one is that communism is unfriendly to individuality. But rather it is the bourgeoisie or "capitalist" who have made everyone "equal" by making money the driving force of all actions. Now the physician, the lawyer, the priest, they have all become mere slaves in the service of money instead of their own occupations.

reply to post by petrus4

Marx wasn't some kind of reptilian woo-woo or anything. He was just like any other thinker such as Aristotle or Hume or Nietzsche. One wouldn't usually say that Socrates was ushering in the Age of Aquarius and advocating for a grand interplanetary plutocracy with his writings

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
]

I'm sorry, did you really think that Russian communism was tainted by the "cabal" and therefore was not the "real" communism?
Communism itself is a product of the cabal, so what difference does it make? The NWO is communism. It is a bunch of globalists inserting themselves as rulers over the rest of the world and they have the money and the power to do it. Everything else is secondary.
Who are the Globalists? They are occultists, they are the Fallen Angels reembodying lifetime after lifetime in the same family bloodlines.

how is the NWO communist when supposedly true communism is micro not macro and not about corporatism? it seems to me that NWO is logically in line and step with corporatists/bankers via capitalism? i don't understand.

Originally posted by krossfyter

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
]

I'm sorry, did you really think that Russian communism was tainted by the "cabal" and therefore was not the "real" communism?
Communism itself is a product of the cabal, so what difference does it make? The NWO is communism. It is a bunch of globalists inserting themselves as rulers over the rest of the world and they have the money and the power to do it. Everything else is secondary.
Who are the Globalists? They are occultists, they are the Fallen Angels reembodying lifetime after lifetime in the same family bloodlines.

how is the NWO communist when supposedly true communism is micro not macro and not about corporatism? it seems to me that NWO is logically in line and step with corporatists/bankers via capitalism? i don't understand.

Well, I never said that communism of any sort was micro.

Let's put it another way, using Antony Sutton's explanation. The Hegelian dialectic, of which both Marx and Engels took their cue, is two opposing forces or ideologies pitted against one another in conflict. This is the "managed conflict" created by globalists. The opposing forces in conflict create the synthesis. Sutton then says that the NWO is the synthesis.

Originally posted by Tadeusz
The typical family generally shares things very frequently. Living space, dinner table, food, and so on. Who here has ever lived in a family? A form of communism perhaps. What if several families formed a "hamlet" where each family operated like an individual within a larger family? That would be communism on a larger scale. What if several "hamlets" form a "town" and several "towns" form a "city" and so on until the world is one big family? It would be worldwide communism as Marx envisioned it.

edit on 13-6-2012 by Tadeusz because: (no reason given)

So an ideal communistic "state" would have us relagated to the level of "children".

To be taken care of.
Disciplined.
Punished.
Unable to make our own decisions.

reply to post by ANOK

Name one instance or even one Country that is a Communist System that is not a Mess. Name ONE!
Split Infinity

Originally posted by Tadeusz
reply to post by petrus4

 

Marx wasn't some kind of reptilian woo-woo or anything. He was just like any other thinker such as Aristotle or Hume or Nietzsche. One wouldn't usually say that Socrates was ushering in the Age of Aquarius and advocating for a grand interplanetary plutocracy with his writings

edit on 13-6-2012 by Tadeusz because: (no reason given)

Did I mention the reptilians? I don't believe in them. There's no need. The human equivalent are quite bad enough.

When I was in East Berlin...Men who were my shadow would come up to me and ask...Hey!....is there any chance the next time you come over you could bring my kid a pair of Levi's?

These were people who were there to watch me! Another item that was Highly Desirable was an AM/FM Cassette Player for a Car. Not one with a CD player as they did not have CD's readily available at the time.

These people were Higher Up Communists who wished they were NOT!
Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ANOK

 

Name one instance or even one Country that is a Communist System that is not a Mess. Name ONE!
Split Infinity

What ANOK talks about isn't what has been implemented in Communist countries, Split; so he would not disagree with you, I don't think.

ANOK has talked about things like the co-operative movement. They've been associated with Communism, but there are real world cases, (not in terms of national governments, mind you) where co-ops genuinely have worked well.

Understand; we've had a shell game played, here; and this is what I've written about earlier in terms of Marx being in cohoots with the Rothschilds. It's a case of claiming that they're going to implement something like the co-op model at the national level, and then implementing a stratified, psychopathic mess in actual practice, exactly as you say.

So I don't advocate Marxism myself; but then again, as ANOK has said, neither does he. It's just that Marx has become the proverbial elephant in the living room. If you say you want something other than Capitalism, he is immediately what people assume.

The other thing to be aware of, is that the American government has used the word, "Communist," in the past, in the same way that it uses the word, "terrorist," today. A Communist or a terrorist therefore, in American governmental parlance, is anyone that said government has decided it doesn't like.

reply to post by petrus4


Communism is really just a theory. In practicality some individuals are either more intelligent or luckier than others. This leads them to wealth. And with wealth they impose a maze with cheese at the end for us mice to chase.

Be it communism, capitalism, fascism whatever. These individuals will always rise to the top. And they just can't help themselves from meddling with the rest of us!!!

Through personal sovereignty, familial sovereignty, and national sovereignty we finally achieve world sovereignty -- that's what communism is all about. And it is inevitable as people slowly grow out of their beastly inclinations.