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.

 

America On Verge Of Communist Takeover, Says Former Castro Revolutionary

page: 20
61
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AntiNWO

Originally posted by beezzer
Earlier in this thread I asked "how" something like this could occur.

I think I found an answer.

In order to enact martial law and have a ruler versus a president WHILE having the populace embrace the idea is this.

Destroy the power grid.


You may be onto something there. And consider this: They could blame the outage on "cyber-terrorism" and take control of the internet at the same time.


As conspiracies go, I'd have to put this one in the "plausable" category.




posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonnywhite
Considering how candidates in government receive millions of dollars from donors and how intimately government is tied to economic power it makes me wonder. Almost 1 in 2 congress members are millionaires. In the general population, about 8% are millionaires. Right there is a disparity.


~8% are millionaires? Are you sure? Do you mean they have over a million in equity, or yearly income?

If the latter, that's just incorrect. If the former...that's still hard to believe.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


there is this...


47% of Congress Members Millionaires — a Status Shared by Only 1% of Americans
By Tom Shine Nov 16, 2011 8:45am

It’s no secret that many members of the U.S. House and Senate are millionaires — 47 percent of them — their salaries paid in part by the American taxpayers.

The Center for Responsive Politics has crunched the numbers and released the results on its Open Secrets blog:

“About 47 percent of Congress, or 249 current members are millionaires. … In 2010, the estimated median net worth of a current U.S. senator stood at an average of $2.56 million,” according to the Center’s research.

“Despite the global economic meltdown in 2008 and the sluggish recovery that followed, that’s up about 7.6 percent from an estimated median net worth of $2.38 million in 2009 … and up 13 percent from a median net worth of $2.27 million in 2008. … Fully 36 Senate Democrats, and 30 Senate Republicans reported an average net worth in excess of $1 million in 2010. The same was true for 110 House Republicans and 73 House Democrats.”

“The vast majority of members of Congress are quite comfortable, financially, while many of their own constituents suffer from economic hardships,” said Sheila Krumholz at the Center For Responsive Politics. “Few Americans enjoy the same financial cushions maintained by most members of Congress — or the same access to market-altering information that could yield personal, financial gains.”
abcnews.go.com...



edit on 5-8-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by BIHOTZ
 


I got no qualm about roughly half of congress being millionaires, but the second part is clearly off.

Here's a wiki showing that less than 1% of US households qualify as having a net worth of 1 million:

Linky



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


yeah I agree....the article title affirms what you are saying and some light reading anywhere could verify it....

true....



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by rottensociety
That's not correct at all. Marxism, Bolshevism and Trotskyism were/are the same thing - "International Communism."

This is akin to saying that Protestantism, Catholicism and the Orthodox are all the same - after all they are all Christians, yet there are huge differences and wars have been fought in the past because of those differences.

Marxism is the initial theory of Marx; Bolshevism is how the Russian communists understood that theory and tried to make it a reality and Trotskyism arouse from the disagreement between Stalin and Trotsky after Lenins death. Whereas Stalin believed they should try and achieve communism in Russia first, Trotsky believed that the revolution had to be exported in order to defeat capitalism worldwide and thus achieve easier communism.

I doubt he had to rewrite anything, all he did was interpret the theory as he saw fit. According to theory, there are 3 stages to Communism: 1. the dictatorship of the proletariat 2. socialism and 3. finally, communism. AFAIK, however, it is not clearly defined how long each stage has to last. That pretty much enabled Stalin to become dictator for life.

Originally posted by rottensociety
Marx had written many flaws into Communism so that it wouldn't work and indeed, it doesn't work.

You make it sound like Marx did that deliberately. Did he or was he not smart enough to think things entirely through?

Originally posted by rottensociety
People cannot all be equal and that's the truth - unless we start cloning humans to all be exactly the same. Just as "Liberty" and "Freedom" are impossible in any working human society with moral responsibilities.

The US founding fathers beg to differ: "We hold these things to be self-evident that ... all man are created equal." Of course, even those highly enlightened founding fathers were not enlightened enough to include African slaves and Native Americans in their definition of man. As for liberty and freedom, of course you cannot have absolute liberty and freedom, because that would mean that someone could feel free to kill another human being. As the saying goes: your freedom ends a few inches in front of my nose.

Originally posted by rottensociety
Communism and Socialism absolutely CAN be lumped together because we are not talking about true ideology, but terminology. We are living in a world controlled by the Marxist International and they are using "Communism", "Socialism", "Liberalism", "Social Democracy" and "Anarchism" to get their world revolution. "Socialism" is used because they know people are afraid of the term "Communism" - so they are definitely lumping them together.

Where communism and socialism differ is the matter of money; communism as the utopian end stage does not have any money, because there is no need for it. Socialism - being an intermediate stage - still has need for the existence of money. If you really think that "we live in a world controlled by the Marxist International" you are deluded; we live in world where money (banks and multinational corporations) rule supreme.

Originally posted by rottensociety
Then look what happened!! They took the farm machinery, animals and seeds from the farmers and millions and millions died!

The overwhelming majority of the farmers in Russia did not own anything and did not loose anything during the revolution. They used to work for rich land owners; they lost everything. And the millions dead was due to bad resource management and most of them were Ukranians who Stalin let deliberately starve to death.

edit on 5/8/2012 by WalterRatlos because: spelling and formatting

edit on 5/8/2012 by WalterRatlos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
It is highly unlikely Obama would try to carry out marshal law in America right now. Often many people forget that everything America does is watched by the entire world. If the US government were to declare marshal law in the states it would send the entire world into a tail spin. America goes around the world bombing the hell out of governments which have some form of marshal law instated all the time, so they cannot do it on the home front on a large scale without serious backlash. It is important for the US gov. to maintain an image that America is a so-called `free` nation in order to justify the things it does internationally.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomwv
 


Good point.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker
why is a former Cuban military officer allowed to live in the US?


Because this is a free country? Ah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha FREE COUNTRY! HEE, HEE thats a good one!!



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Ok. So what do I think? I think that Communism and Capitalism are merging as one. China will lean more towards the right as US will tend to favor the left. This makes sense as the laws of equilibrium demands this. Physics and life are so intertwined you can't barely separate one from the other really.

I'm using Occam's Razor here so bear with me as I become overly simplistic. The West will embrace the iron fisted methods of the east in time. One. because they have envied it for so lone, and two because it has proven to be profitable as in China's case. The east on the other hand will embrace more of the West's methods of deception and greed. Because it feels good to satiate oneself with the overwhelming greed while fooling everyone, including oneself, with deception or lies.

Hand in hand, great civilizations will merge and one day form the NWO we so fear. Watch the Olympics. It has shown that both communists and capitalists are successful at the endeavors they undergo. A balance established, a merging soon to follow.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by headb
 


yeah too bad that the people forming the NWO do so with lies, murder, and treachery.....not so convincing when they need to be bastards all the way....

really if they would just come out with it we might agree.....the reason they don't is because it is a mortal threat to many many many people....their competition....

economics has little to do with living and adapting to the world....they know that if developing nations keep their populations growing they will lose the high concentration of wealth their parents enjoyed and will become a sorry second on the world stage compared to China and India...to name a few....

click on the word HELP in my signature...that is the reality to the NWO.....when it is all said and done they will double cross everyone....they don't want to make a nice place for anyone besides themselves....everyone helping them is a dumbass hoping to be in on the surviving....

they want to cut the fat....well what is not useful to them....like a balanced and fair world with sane wealth distribution....and equal opportunities...no need for war and BS or them when we are all living well. That is "unsustainable" and a "threat" to them.


edit on 5-8-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Yada, Yada, blah, blah, blah,....leftwinger, commie, socialist, pinko..reactionary drones have been uttering this mantra since the 50's and it's old, wrinkled and used up like Nixon's tallywhacker. I've got news for you, the Fascist, Imperialist, Capitalist Pigs have already stolen the entire country, bought out every politician, judge, bureaucrat and are raping the planet and the people. This place is corrupt to the core, just one giant whore house where everything is for sale and all acts of social or moral perversion are not only encourage but rewarded by the disfunctional, traitorous U.S. government. The people have been sold out! The people no longer have faith in any of this systems corrupt and rotting institutions be they the government, banks, wall street, corporation or religions. When people no longer have faith in societies institutions, society collapses. So sit back and enjoy the freak show! Sorry Commies your way too late, so pull up a chair comrade and watch this house of cards come tumbling down.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by headb
 


Ok, first of all, that is simply impossible. You cannot merge capitalism and communism in a social sense; you are either in principle socialistic, or capitalistic. Of course, China 'mixes' the two, but in it's social sense, China is still predominantly communistic. They utilize capitalism for the sake of competing with the west.

Even more importantly since your using an economic term (capitalism), socialism is the opposite of republicanism. Socialism of course is predicated on the centralization of government, giving the majority - if not all - the power to the state relative to the communities which make up the state. Republicanism is the opposite approach. Now, how do you 'mix' these two elements? It's as illogical as mixing white and black and hoping to maintain the existence of either.

The US is still relatively safe from communism. We aren't there yet. The states still have a great deal of power and in fact there has been a growing trend in the last few years in this direction. However, Obama - an Alinskyite - is in power; he's been empowering America's enemies - Islamism - oversees while pushing socialist ideas like universal healthcare (which I actually favor, to a degree) domestically. More worrisome is his support of far left radical groups, his push for 'leveling' the field; taxing the rich to a greater proportion than other classes, all of which implies a desire to eliminate the middle class.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by HEYJOSE
 


The idea of a free country is a interesting one. In fact, I have thought about what really is a free country for a long time. What is it really? There are so many theories on this out there that it can be very confusing.
We are talking about communism in this thread; right? Communism has not been achieved yet. A socialist state has been achieved many times. Going directly from capitalism to communism would result in a total breakdown in society and it is highly ill advised. Socialism often develops naturally overtime; unless it is demanded by the people due to the capitalist government totally oppressing people to the highest form(refer to the libertarian Chile experiment).

Of course defectors of a Socialist state system will hate any kind of socialism. They don`t like it nor were they ready to live in such a manner. Socialism is a transition period to communism. It can be a very long period of transition. During that time a lot of things can happen. Capitalist will do anything to destroy a socialist state because capitalist cannot expand into a socialist system therefore limiting their ability to increase profits beyond their own boarders. So, it is only natural that capitalist will make every attempt to being about the ruin of a socialist state. We have seen countless examples of capitalist doing many things to tear down a socialist state or force it to revert back to capitalism.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomwv
 


Any form of government that has been used on this planet has been pyramidal, throughout history, to the best of my knowledge and as such there has always been an elite at the top and everybody else at the bottom. Usually those at the top, have arrived at their positions by murder, rape, theft and various criminal activities which victimize the majority of their fellow humanity. These parasitic, sociopaths derive a penchant for wearing silly hats, silly costumes and create and conduct silly ceremonies adhering to arbitrary, absurd protocols all as a methodology to create a fiction of faux superiority, which will hopefully fool the masses into supporting the absurd scam. There is no valid, form of government on this planet, nor has there ever been one. What I mean to say is a government which truely serves the best interests of the people as it's sole reason for existence.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by headb
 


Ok, first of all, that is simply impossible. You cannot merge capitalism and communism in a social sense; you are either in principle socialistic, or capitalistic. Of course, China 'mixes' the two, but in it's social sense, China is still predominantly communistic. They utilize capitalism for the sake of competing with the west.


You're right, except China is not communist and never has been.

Communism is not totalitarianism. There is no such thing as a "communist" government, except in name only.

Totalitarianism is totalitarianism no matter what flavour it comes in, socialist or capitalist. Neither guarantee you freedom, but the workers owning the means of production reduces the chance of a class of people becoming the dictators. Right now we have a dictatorship of private owners, the capitalist, or ruling, class.

Communism and socialism are basically the same thing. The term communism was adopted by socialists like Marx because the middle class were appropriating the term socialism for their liberal ideas, as they have done since. Marx adopted the term communism to differentiate himself from those middle class liberals. Just like direct action supporting socialists used the term anarchist to differentiate themselves from Marxist socialists.

Marxism is not communism, it is a political path to move society from capitalism to communism/socialism. Worker ownership in a society of freely associating producers.


In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.


Free association (communism and anarchism)

China is far from having a free association of producers. They have a predominately nationalist, state owned, economy.

Capitalism is not money, it is not markets, it is a descriptive word of who owns the means to produce for the market. That at this time being private entities, which is capitalism. Capitalism does not guarantee anyone freedom, other than the capitalists freedom due to economic power. Capitalists created society where freedom is a privilege for the wealthy. Where they have convinced you that capitalism means freedom, and anything else is tyranny. Capitalists wave their economic freedom in our faces, and most people fall for the con under the always hopeful expectation that one day they may have that economic freedom.

Western capitalists sure don't have a problem with China's economic, and political system. China was set up nicely for exploitation of labour. If China was communist this wouldn't have happened, as the workers make the decisions under communism, not the state on behalf of capitalists interests. It doesn't matter if private owners or the state own the means to produce, they both exploit the workers.

State ownership is not worker ownership and thus is not communism/socialism.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by murphy22
 


There is a price for everything, action and inaction.
Complacency demands the highest toll.

Who's talking about complacency and inaction?
You can keep making this about money if you want, but it's about decency and humanity looking after one another, without regard for "rewards". THAT is Grace, and Love. Read "The Road Less Traveled" by M.Scott Peck.

Wanting what is best, and doing what is best, for another WITHOUT EXPECTING ANYTHING IN RETURN. Just because you can!!

How HARD is that for people to understand?


Well that's all good BUT....

You certainly must know by now that a high percentage of Humans are psychopathic.

What is the grand solution for THAT little problem ?



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

But sitting down in that couch watching football, or whatever other sports or soap opera you are into meanwhile you drink another beer is not going to stop this. You have to protest to the government and demand for the international socialists/communists/fascists in control to be fired from their jobs.

From massive protesting of Americans for the dismantling of the Federal Reserve and getting back to the silver and gold standard, to puting in office people like Ron Paul will be the only things that will save this country from the take over by the international socialist/communist/fascist elites.


edit on 3-8-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.


To use the government to decide who has what job would be socialist.
To use your personal feelings to determine who is fit for a job would be facist.
To go back to the gold standard would follow what all the communist countries are currently doing.

To ask an American to understand these concepts would be insanity.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.


I apologize. I'm a little bit confused about which part of your manner's policy I violated. I thought everything I said was fairly open ended.

Is using facts not allowed?
edit on 5-8-2012 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by AntiNWO

Originally posted by beezzer
Earlier in this thread I asked "how" something like this could occur.

I think I found an answer.

In order to enact martial law and have a ruler versus a president WHILE having the populace embrace the idea is this.

Destroy the power grid.


You may be onto something there. And consider this: They could blame the outage on "cyber-terrorism" and take control of the internet at the same time.


As conspiracies go, I'd have to put this one in the "plausable" category.


In fact, Obama may be in the "set up" mode already....


Senate Republicans recently blocked cybersecurity legislation, but the issue might not be dead after all.

The White House hasn't ruled out issuing an executive order to strengthen the nation's defenses against cyber attacks if Congress refuses to act.

“In the wake of Congressional inaction and Republican stall tactics, unfortunately, we will continue to be hamstrung by outdated and inadequate statutory authorities that the legislation would have fixed," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in an emailed response to whether the president is considering a cybersecurity order....

After defeat of Senate cybersecurity bill, Obama weighs executive-order option


He will blame the "incident" on his "enemies" as usual.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join