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: 9
61
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Had to locate it. Here are the Communist Goals as read into the Congressional Record in 1963. Amazing how long ago..and how close every single one has now come. This was considered extreme from what people who were around then have told me.

COMMUNIST GOALS (From The Congressional Record, Jan. 10, 1963)


Do you really believe that is the goal of communists? You think that is what Marx wanted, Bakunin, Proudhon, Owen?

That was written by an American conservative Cleon Skousen. He wasn't talking about communism he was talking about "communism". He was taking about the nations that were apposing globalisation.

I keep saying this, but you have to learn to differentiate between the political use of the term "communism" by state systems and the communism of the working class.

The guy wrote the Naked Communist, about the perceived threat of the Soviet Union. Nothing to do with communism other than use of the term to describe the Soviet system, which wasn't communist. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Republics they were, socialist they were not. It's a contradiction. A republic is a system whereby the state is supposed to belong to the people, rather than private entities. But just like the American republic, the state is really controlled by those with the economic power to do so.

Would you really trust this guy?...



He's laughing at you all the way to his piggy bank.


edit on 8/4/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

I'm not quite sure what Marx wanted. His ideas don't translate well enough into the real world, despite many attempts now, to really get a feel for how it might have ever worked. Human nature always gets in the way, and it always will.

Now I'm just observing how this was read into the record so long ago and considered kinda paranoid and silly by some to imagine such a list could really happen here. What tin foil hat talk, or so I've been told some saw it. Today, it looks like a fair breakdown of what we see in society today.

Now that is rather scary.

I also know the Man now running Russia is a product..a direct product...of the system that made that list in the first place. I also know by many media stories and a book written by a high ranking SVR defector, that the real Honest to God communist types never went too far away and Russia's meddling in the United States has actually picked up since the wall came down. It hasn't dropped. It's alive and well, however much people completely ignore it or even find the idea amusing. It's worth noting how much is happening at once, to be sure.

So make of it all what you will. I just offer what people thought was silly in 1963 and note how it's literally descriptive today.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SG-17
 


Passing on the science fiction jokes and jabs, and instead appreciating that at least you are willing to acknowledge that the Star Trek series was selling communist ideals, the elimination of the need for money was predicated on nanotechnology. Nanotechnology today is nowhere near the level of what we see when Captain Picard commands the computer to give him a cup of Earl Grey Tea hot, and we see rainbow colored lights generate not only tea, but the cup too. What we have never seen in Star Trek is how they got to this level of technology and how the addressed the concerns of toxicity and creepy doomsday scenarios such as the grey goo hypothetical.

Maybe the grey goo hypothetical is just histrionic nonsense, or maybe the scenario is a very real concern. At this level of technological understanding today we just don't know. Either way, today we do not have nanotechnology anywhere near the level seen on Star Trek, and of course, the idea of matter/antimatter propulsion is something else altogether.

What you're essentially arguing is that humanity has not yet achieved the technological level required to allow 19th century Marxism to work. Marx was, apparently, a man way before his time. I do think that nanotechnology can get to a level where the market now becomes radically changed and there is no need to make even exchanges for a multitude of products.

Even exchange. This is the primary difference between free market principles and the fantasy of who controls the means of production. Do we really want to eliminate the need for an even exchange? Marx extolled an ideal of to each according to their needs and to each according to their abilities, but such a scenario only discourages those with ability disclosing that ability and only encourages everyone to focus on their needs. Those who have disclosed their abilities will invariably be punished for it as they become responsible for all those wise enough to lack ability and show great need. An even exchange doesn't even come into play.

While I certainly saw what appeared to be a communist ideal in Star Trek, it is one where each according to his needs and each according to his ability was tempered with even exchange. Every person had an ability that benefited the whole and every person, presumably had roughly the same needs. This allowed for an even exchange. The free market does this without any militaristic enforcement.

Lenin once said, and I paraphrase, that the only way to beat a capitalist society is to undermine their currency because you cannot beat a one on one situation. That one on one situation Lenin speaks of is the even exchange I speak of in a free society. Even if both buyer and seller have the capacity of even exchange, the seller does not have to sell his product to the buyer, and the buyer is not obligated to buy the product. That is the foundation of free market principles and even if the need for money were eliminated, free market principles still have value.

In terms of, and in defense of the O.P., Lenin's insistence that the only way to beat a capitalist society is by undermining their currency, it should be understood that the U.S. dollar has been greatly undermined since at least 1972 and is virtually worthless today. Coincidence? I don't think so.




edit on 4-8-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Hey Jean Paul, your post made me think I'd remembered seeing that interim period of history explained somewhere in the Star Trek lore. What I came across is interesting and exactly how the lore seems to go here is pretty close to what I recall. The only addition is I could have sworn food riots about this time in actual dates being shown as a historical part, I believe that was in the Deepspace 9 series if I had to say. Anyway... Here is some of the lore.


The first manned flight to Mars was done in 2032 (the Ares IV mission). But as advances in science proceeded, the political situation on Earth started to become tense. This led to World War III somewhere in the first half of the 21st century (exact year unknown). The nature of the conflict was never revealed, only that several 'factions' fought out a nuclear war which ultimately killed 600 million people until its end in 2053. In an attempt to continue the eugenic effort, one faction leader, Colonel Green, killed several more hundreds of thousands of people who had suffered radiation poisoning, to prevent them from introducing mutations into the human genome. Earth was crippled as a result of the war and its aftermath, most of its people thrown back into a state of poverty and anarchy.

The turning point in Star Trek (and Earth's) history occurred in 2063, when Zefram Cochrane made his first faster-than-light flight with a warp-driven space ship. It attracted the attention of the Vulcans, who regarded humanity as a race in its developmental infancy and had left the war-stricken planet alone up to that time.
Source

Of course, how it relates is that even the Star Trek world had to envision a massive calamity to see their idea of Utopia actually happen. Hmm.. yeah, still fictional television and a good show. Not comparison for something to do.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Marx looked at capitalism and noted that the law of profit operated. I.e. labor and and products had a value and that a profit was made. However if we lok at Cuba and russia the same thing applies. In capitalism the profits acrue ultimately to the ruling classes and their accolytes. In Cuba and Russsia the same thing applies. In america the ruling classes are those who reallydo not need to work for their money. In Russia and Cuba these individual are all party apparatchnicks whpo form the government.

Is there any suprise that those who have ACTUALLY read Marx and Lenin actually have spent decades trying to work out what the Soviet and Cuban systems are as they are certainly NOT communist. Opinions vary from stating that the system is state capitalist to even a deformed workers state however profits are still made and appropriated by the apparatchniks.

American society can only move forwards when the people abandon the Cold War rhetoric of the past and face their current problems which are not the fault of the Russians.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
You know what I see. I see presidents doing things so badly on purpose so that public outcry is great and whomever follows them is hailed as a savior. Obama has been easy to hate. Whoever follows him can do whatever they please and we would thank him from the start without having done anything yet besides not being the last guy.


In Spain our last president did nothing about the financial crisis. He denied it for years almost to the point of absurdity. Then our new president won the election because he simply was not the last guy. He has sold all of Spain and its fiscal authority to Germany for a useless partial bail out that only increases the interest on our debt. What we all have to pay.

He doesn't even refer to his country as Spain anymore. We are the Spanish people from the Spanish ZONE.

His language reeks of loyalty to the Euro zone over his people. He also seems PWND like he had a rude wakeup call after the months he went into hiding after he won the election. They got to him or showed him the full playbook. He is a broken man. His words tremble and he is visibly scared and intimidated when he is not making a speech he spent hours working on. He knows something and it shows.....shows that it is bad.

You could say that if this is indicative of the effect of globalism in leadership and that if Obama is replaced with Romney he will speak similarly about the American zone until we are not a country anymore but a region of governance .

This boogey man THEY created and represented by false means is just an excuse to make dramatic changes themselves to reflect a darker side of leadership and loyalty to an un-elected global power.

We are in danger of becoming communist about as much as we are in danger of becoming Elvis.

It is an excuse to make radical changes to the US.
Don't buy it

EDIT:
In case we forget....Hitler used a fake communist threat to rise to power and take away civil liberties by blaming communists with trying to overthrow his government. Please read our history. It will be burned shortly and we might as well enjoy it a while longer before they do. If they hadn't invented a communist threat Hitler would not have gotten half as far as he did.


edit on 4-8-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Perhaps somebody can "explain" how Marx invented his variant "Capitalism" as part of the Hegelian Dialectic.

Pssst ............... Marx's "Capitalism" = another Codeword.

All part of the *frenzied circular pattern of thought and action*

Strange how He "melded" it all into the Communist Manifesto !!!!

Hmmm.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


You should check what Bakunin had to say on Marx and his links with wealthy jews and Rothschild.




Bakunin on Marx and Rothschild “Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of blooksuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild. This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ....” Source: Michael Bakunin, 1871, Personliche Beziehungen zu Marx. In: Gesammelte Werke. Band 3. Berlin 1924. P. 204-216. [My translation - UD].
www.connexions.org...

edit on 4-8-2012 by ludwigvonmises003 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Bakunin was against Marx himself because he had knowledge of Marx's links with Rothschilds.Trotsky was a Rothschild-Schiff implant
Stalin rebelled against Rothschild power(The Red symphony) .



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Communism on a global grid will never happen unless they plan on killing millions of people AGAIN. But we are equipped with much knowledge and will not fall for it this time.
Only morons with a chip on their shoulder are calling for communism. It's what the super rich want because it erases the middle class and pushes them towards "godly status" or so they wish. What's fascinating is the political pawns on this website who openly defend and deny that communism and it's little bro, socialism hasn't caused major damage in history.
Don't get me wrong, I like socialism in it's infancy, then the cockroaches move in and nest until they're unhorsed
edit on 4-8-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


exactly....it is a tool of control where as capitalism in its true form empowers people. The fact is that the people who invented communism were not communist. They just thought it a good idea for the people.

Every OWS person with a communist sign and calling each other comrade, is actually doing exactly what these people want.

Without useful idiots they can't make dramatic changes to our government and our country(people).

Look to the kids the FBI raided and arrested for LITERATURE after vandalism. They set a precedent for future arrests based on literature....what were they reading......You got it.

So if you think you are a communist and want to make radical change to your country realize that you may be helping people like Hitler take power because without the nonsense you speak they can't make it happen.

Again.....YOU ARE AMERICANS....A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC....not a communist wet dream. Not people who dream of being the best workers ever....no....we dream of owning our own businesses and having the greatest degree of security and prosperity so we cannot be duped into throwing our wealth at opportunistic liars...

Khazarian communists. Look it up.


edit on 4-8-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Actually once the october revolution was won there was three years of marxism and then the troika system took over and it all went badly wrong. Marx did not develop the russain economic model it was Stalin the bane of everyone except his apparatchnicks.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by BIHOTZ
 


again.Whenever power is centralized ,the result will be the same.If communism/captalism are centralized the end result is same.

Libertarianism whether socialist/captalist can only empower people.Not centralized control like the Rothschild and their central banks and corporations or Trotsky communism.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


exactly....it is a tool of control where as capitalism in its true form empowers people. The fact is that the people who invented communism were not communist. They thought it ok for the people.

Every OWS person with a communist sign and calling each other comrade, is actually doing exactly what these people want.

Without useful idiots they can't make dramatic changes to our government.

Look to the kids the FBI raided and arrested for LITERATURE after vandalism. They set a precedent for future arrests based on literature....what were they reading......You got it.

So if you think you are a communist and want to make radical change to your country realize that you may be helping people like Hitler take power because without the nonsense you speak they can't make it happen.

Again.....YOU ARE AMERICANS....A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC....not a communist wet dream. Not people who dream of being the best workers ever....no....we dream of owning our own businesses and having the greatest degree of security and prosperity so we cannot be duped into throwing our wealth at opportunistic liars...

Khazarian communists. Look it up.


edit on 4-8-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



Excellent post BIHOTZ. It's nice to see a clear interpretation of the current situation without any hesitation. You can clearly see who the enemies of humanity are by their answers to this queStion by the OP



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by HamrHeed
 


Centralized imperial empires are already killing tens of millions whether via war,starvation,disease etc.

All Centralized power whether communist/capitalist is evil and ultimately becomes imperial .Imperialism is dependent on war and genocide.People like Rothschild control it then.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


Fascism can exist anywhere under the guise of anything. It is simply extremism. Without the necessary tools to voice public outcry, they take over everywhere.

Communism is good for addressing the non issues of a WORK FORCE. It is worker oriented. Not oriented to the public in general.

Democracy is useful for ALL PEOPLE and empowers them all to form unions, parties, ect. Communism does not let things like this happen because the lie that is government concern for workers rights is always used to silence them. NO communist government has EVER cared about its workers. EVER. They will not start now.

No, we had a good thing going. Not perfect but not the disaster that was soviet Russia or the non bastion of happy workers that is china.

I can't believe people can't just look at the examples of communism and see who it screws over and who it really empowers.

LIES LIES LIES..Give me my country, my democracy, my educated and empowered democratic people. We were the light of the world once....let us keep the flame burning at least for ourselves.

TRUE DEMOCRACY FOR THE US!



edit on 4-8-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
Bakunin was against Marx himself because he had knowledge of Marx's links with Rothschilds.Trotsky was a Rothschild-Schiff implant Stalin rebelled against Rothschild power(The Red symphony) .


Bakunin was an anarchist, and saw Marx as an authoritarian. Their rift came about because of their disagreement over the state. Marx wanted a transitional state system, the dictatorship of the proletariat, to make the move from capitalism to communism. The political route. Bakunin disagreed with any kind of state system, and wanted to move immediately to communism using direct action.

That Rothschild stuff is nonsense. He was simply speculating, not stating fact. Remember Bakunin was expelled from the IWMA because of Marx, he would have been none too happy I would imagine. I think he spent the rest of his life trying to discredit him after that.


“They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up. ” Mikhail Bakunin, Statism and Anarchism


Bakunin admitted that he really didn't understand Marx's economic ideas.


“As far as learning was concerned, Marx was, and still is, incomparably more advanced than I. I knew nothing at that time of political economy, I had not yet rid myself of my metaphysical observations... He called me a sentimental idealist and he was right; I called him a vain man, perfidious and crafty, and I also was right.” Bakunin



“I am a fanatical lover of liberty.... I do not mean that formal liberty which is dispensed, measured out, and regulated by the State.... Nor do I mean that individualist, egoist, base, and fraudulent liberty extolled by the school of Jean Jacques Rousseau and every other school of bourgeois liberalism, which considers the rights of all, represented by the State, as a limit for the rights of each.... No, I mean the only liberty worthy of the name, the liberty which implies the full development of all the material, intellectual, and moral capacities latent in everyone of us; the liberty which knows no other restrictions but those set by the laws of our own nature. Consequently there are, properly speaking, no restrictions, since these laws are not imposed upon us by any legislator from outside, alongside, or above ourselves. These laws are subjective, inherent in ourselves; they constitute the very basis of our being.... [T]hat liberty of each man which does not find another man’s freedom a boundary but confirmation and vast extension of his own; liberty through solidarity, in equality.” Mikhail Bakunin



edit on 8/4/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by HamrHeed
 


Centralized imperial empires are already killing tens of millions whether via war,starvation,disease etc.

All Centralized power whether communist/capitalist is evil and ultimately becomes imperial .Imperialism is dependent on war and genocide.People like Rothschild control it then.



Agreed, capitalism, or whatever mutation we have now is rotten at the core. They have simply moved past the idea that money is power.
Now coercion is power. They probably believe they're gods at this point because of the current tech we possess.
The space race is getting very interesting at this point as well. I wonder if they're infighting yet

Edit: I think of it like this :
The global markets have changed so much in the last 20 yrs and it's only going to speed up just like the expansion of the universe, it's inevitable.
For instance, the markets have been CORNERED as we have the technology and brains to achieve this. We are, as a species, on the verge of moving into the universe and "colonizing" other galaxies, or maybe just the super elite at our expense..

edit on 4-8-2012 by HamrHeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
The only way to stop the centralisation of power is by not allowing people to accumulate the wealth that it takes.

That wealth has been accumulated for the last 250 years by the private owners of the means of production, capitalists, by exploiting labour.

Worker ownership ensures that no minority class can monopolise the means to produce. So no one class can exploit the labour of another, and no one class can accumulate more wealth than another giving them their authority.

[end of sermon]



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The only way to stop the centralisation of power is by not allowing people to accumulate the wealth that it takes.

That wealth has been accumulated for the last 250 years by the private owners of the means of production, capitalists, by exploiting labour.

Worker ownership ensures that no minority class can monopolise the means to produce. So no one class can exploit the labour of another, and no one class can accumulate more wealth than another giving them their authority.

[end of sermon]


Nobody is falling for the lies anymore, sorry. There is no "workers ownership" in a union anymore. Your unions have gone the way of religions. The original purveyors have gone awol and for good reason.
Statistics show that union "solidarity" and those types of orgs. hurt the host country, not help.




top topics



 
61
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join