DOH! It's About SOCIALISM !!!!

every socialist country that murdered masses of their own citizens in the last century first implemented gun control

Name one socialist country that killed masses of its own people?

You could try to claim Hitler, though he seemed to be more of a military dictator than a socialist. Other than that I can't think of a single socialist country that kills its own people. Communists do, but not socialists.

Originally posted by CB328

every socialist country that murdered masses of their own citizens in the last century first implemented gun control

Name one socialist country that killed masses of its own people?

You could try to claim Hitler, though he seemed to be more of a military dictator than a socialist. Other than that I can't think of a single socialist country that kills its own people. Communists do, but not socialists.

It really pays to know your facts and read the whole thread first you might learn someyhing. I have already proven in this thread and others that Hitler and the communist are socialists and the wannabe commies keep trying to redefine the term and then claim that is not socialism. Go back and read and learn. in the meantime you asked for one socialist country that killed masses of its citizens how about 8? here is a flier I did years ago...

50 million exterminated for lack of self-defense.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. '1, '2, '3.

1.5 million exterminated for lack of self-defense. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. '4.

13 million exterminated for lack of self-defense. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. '5.

20 million exterminated for lack of self-defense. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. '6

100 thousand exterminated for lack of self-defense. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. '7.

300 thousand exterminated for lack of self-defense. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. '8, '9.

1 million exterminated for lack of self-defense. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated." '10.

56 million total, exterminated for lack of self-defense.Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

The next time someone talks in favor of Anti Self Defense (gun control), ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and EXTERMINATE?" Please pause and reflect on the MASSIVE AMOUNT of lives lost because the means of self defense were deprived these people. Now you may begin to understand why gun owners are prepared to defend the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" with all our might as our Founding Fathers did! This is not idle talk, references are provided. The media is not giving facts, next time they quote statistics supposedly in favor of Anti Self Defense (gun control) Ask for references, you will be astonished at the lack there of, and half truths used to support their "Anti Self-Defense" agenda.

End notes
Lethal Laws. By Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, & Alan M. Rice. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, P.O. Box 270143, Hartford, WI 53027 (262) 673-9745 et al. '1. Simkin et al., supra note 2, at 98. '2. Decree of the Council of People's Commissars, 10 December 1918, reprinted in 4 Decrees of Soviet Power 123 (Moscow 1968), reprinted in Simkin et al., supra note 2, at 123 '3. Id. at 100-04. '4. Id. at 83. '5. Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews 318-20 (1985). '6. Id. at 190. '7. Id. at 229. '8. Id. at 276. '9. Id. at 278. '10. Simkin et al., supra note 2, at 315. For more in depth detail visit: www.jpfo.org..., www.jpfo.org...

Most of Europe as soclist and it works rather well for us. We have some of te higest standard of living in the world and smaller gap between rich and poor.

But what works for us may not work for you. But if the majority of people want it then democraticaly thats the way you go.

Trust me you wont end up a dictatorship with no rights, we havent.

Agenda 21 was penned by the VP of the world socialist party. It calls for a gun free USA. I outline it here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by zedVSzardoz

Care to point out where in Agenda 21 firearms/weapons/guns are mentioned? I did a search of the document and none of those terms even show up.

I think America should get a say on whether we want Socialism or not. Hijacking a party in order to create a Socialist America will not go down well. They should stop lurking in the background and sniping every chance they get and make their case for it if that is what they desire.

Originally posted by jimmiec
I think America should get a say on whether we want Socialism or not. Hijacking a party in order to create a Socialist America will not go down well. They should stop lurking in the background and sniping every chance they get and make their case for it if that is what they desire.

What are you talking about? If there was any hijacking it was 100 years ago, some would say that it was even earlier, and it went down just fine.

reply to post by daskakik


Agenda 21 is the core spirit for policy reform and policy development in all western nations. It is a Globalist agenda, and overtly so.

It has MANY companion documents and pacts penned and signed even before this policy took on the name of "Agenda 21". That is no secret either. The smoking gun as it were is not written in bold ink in plain words for us to see and say "hey that's not legal". It is also very clear without explicit language.

We have seen this push for a disarmed population in many countries and always as per UN recommendations.
Agenda 21 has a myriad of sub entities and organizations that operate locally. Its design is not centralized so it can not be shot down by any one issue it causes.

In the US there exists already the means for what the design of a world army and security force require.

Since it is a little drawn out explaining the US version of its implementation, here is a little resource for you.
www.sweetliberty.org...
PL87-297 Arms Control and Disarmament Act /State Department Publication No.7277

Besides that look to the book "The report from Iron mountain". It was not originaly meant to be made public. It was written around that same era as when these provisions were thought up and see its section on military service and the need for a form of universal peace corps.

On November 26, 1976, the report was reviewed in the book section of The Washington Post by Herschel McLandress,the pen name for Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith wrote that he knew firsthand of the report's authenticity because he had been invited to participate in its creation; that although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project secret; and that while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about the report, he agreed totally with its conclusions.

He wrote: "As I would put my personal reputation behind the authenticity of this document,

www.goodnewsaboutgod.com...

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by daskakik

 

It has MANY companion documents and pacts penned and signed even before this policy took on the name of "Agenda 21". That is no secret either. The smoking gun as it were is not written in bold ink in plain words for us to see and say "hey that's not legal". It is also very clear without explicit language.

How convenient. Maybe this stretches all the way back to the passing of the Constitution of the US. Let's figure out what the hidden plan was with that document.

reply to post by daskakik


The "globalist agenda" is nothing new. If you look to history you can see what its main focus is and always was. Dominion on as massive and far reaching a scale as your ships can sail and your flag can fly. Philosophically it is pretty bland and ordinary.

The only difference today from the old world is that within themselves the globalists have obtained order so they don't really fight among themselves anymore over small interests like trading rights here or there, or over this little colony or that tiny island nation.

Even corporatism as coined and made by the church is obsolete. The function is not. But special interests groups have evolved beyond unions, specialists, and representative forms of government, ect...The UN is the new incarnation of corporatism and it is more convoluted and interconnected through its policy than any form its predecessors ever had.

They think big picture now since they are aware of the planet and the means of controlling it exist.

I think they will after the pie is cut and served because there really is no loyalty to any one group when you spend all your history being disloyal to your species.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz

Well, the Constitution is part of that agenda. It came to replace the Articles of Confedertion and took away more state sovereignty and therefore the freedom from their residents.

Getting people to place faith in and fight for the chains that were placed on americans over 200 years ago is a great accomplishment by the globalists. I believe that that was the real american experiment and now it is being exported throughout the world.

reply to post by daskakik


It’s funny though that the articles of confederation failed due to economic factors....made people REALLY paranoid about bankers. That is not ever mentioned in any history class but people in the US were absolutely paranoid and hateful towards the banking system and bankers for their part in making the articles of confederation fail. That is why they were distrustful of the paper bank note as well (bills, paper money). They saw the counterfeiting going on to be the work of the banks themselves so as to devalue state money in the economy of the young country and spark necessary reform to strengthen the federal government.

The constitution was written behind closed doors, but it was a give and take. The threat of a second revolution was imminent and they even had to intercept an army on its way to the capitol to give them time to finish writing it once people realized what was going on....they were told to turn back and see what came of it.

Those men were not given a second chance to "take the capitol" and start a new revolution once the new constitution was accepted publicly.

EDIT:
Also worth considering. After WW2, the constitutions drafted and adopted by the recovering nations the US rebuilt were in many cases BETTER and more empowering than our own. The US was to receive their provisions as well through amendments to our constitution, but they were turned down even though those new constitutions were based on ours.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz

Well that was it, they learned that they had to strike a balance to keep things flowing their way.

I don't see how expanding this to a global scale can be seen as a bad things by americans when they also claim that it is the source of its success.

reply to post by daskakik


well if the economic model that brought our success is respected and that is all that was exported then fine. It is being systematically destroyed though. Seems capitalism is the boogey man everyone credits with the worlds wrongs. Yet it is not even practiced anymore....

You know what the only real role of government towards business in a capitalism is? Limits. Regulation. That is it.

In our current form public subsidy for private profit prevails. What they misleadingly call free enterprise. The government has NO BUSINESS in bailing out anyone. The term "too big to fail" is a sacrilege to true capitalism.

You suck and are a dumb ass, then you go bunk and a better business picks up the slack by offering better products and services than you. When public money is given to private companies, that is NOT capitalism. Call it whatever you want but it is not. That is corporatism. It can exist in a socialism of any form, or communism of any form. That tendency has destroyed our economy and given capitalism a bad name.

EDIT TO ADD:

Corporatism, also known as corporativism has more than one meaning. It may refer to political, or social organization that involves association of the people of society into corporate groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of common interests. Corporatism is theoretically based upon the interpretation of a community as an organic body. The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora") meaning "body".

In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".

Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism. Corporate social interaction is common within kinship groups such as families, clans and ethnicities. Aside from humans, certain animal species are known to exhibit strong corporate social organization, such as penguins. Corporatist types of community and social interaction are common to many ideologies, including: absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism, socialism, and syndicalism.

Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour, and state interest groups to establish economic policy. This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a great video I just found while looking for some material to show you. I am watching as I post this, seems to be accurate though.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by daskakik

 

well if the economic model that brought our success is respected and that is all that was exported then fine. It is being systematically destroyed though.

You know the only real role of government towards business in a capitalism? Limits. Regulation. That is it.

But you just pointed out that there was shenanigans going on from the start so it was never respected and its destruction began before the ink dried. Maybe the success had nothing to do with the economic model?

The black and white crowd would say that limits and regulation are also not capitalism. That seems to be all over ATS, the lack of consensus on the meaning of terms and the attitude that "no matter what you call it" I will not acknowlage it, keeps discussions going around in circles.

ETA: Capitalism is included in the list of ideologies which include corporatism.

reply to post by daskakik


well this was part of our history when monopolies were a problem in the US. The labor laws were not well established so the role of government was in turn made well defined, though it was later ignored once again by moral precedent being the cause for its neglect. Oh the heart strings of puppets.....

I don’t believe in a pure form of any ideology or economic model. That is just not realistic. It is an illusion.

And yes, from the get go the US had its problems from the banks being regulated TOO MUCH to be protected no matter what.

Regulation is fine if it sets limits.

Regulation is bad when it creates larger government so as to regulate, thus granting more interference (favoritism towards one business over others) in the real free market......that is from a capitalist point of view.

I notice the tactic of the semantic argument thrown around whenever someone criticizes the left. Especially so for socialism or communism in particular. It never fails. Make people argue over the definition of terms while always vying for a pure form definition when none has ever existed in the real world, yet the real world has examples of the policies any ideology advocates ripe with failures and successes to be weighed against each other. It is a shame those go ignored because our dictionaries are not perfect to everyone’s liking……

ETA: Capitalism is included in the list of ideologies which include corporatism.

by everything I showed you I have tried to explain how that is NOT capitalism. It is always mistakenly (or purposely) labeled as capitalism when it goes against EVERYTHING capitalism needs to function properly. Like saying 80s rap is classical music, or emo is hard core...It is music yes, but has NOTHING to do with the other forms of music that are called "classical" or "hard core", if that makes sense. If I wanted people to associate 80s rap as refined music, or emo as being bad ass I would employ such a tactic..

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by daskakik

 

I notice the tactic of the semantic argument thrown around whenever someone criticizes the left or socialism in particular. It never fails.

It also happens when someone criticizes the right and capitalism. If government had to step in and limit and regulate for things to improve then the idea that free market capitalism was a success in the US during the 18th century seems to be wrong.

Make people argue over the definition of things always vying for a pure form definition, when none has ever existed in the real world, yet the real world has examples of the policies any ideology advocates ripe with failures and successes to be measured. But those go ignored because our dictionaries are not perfect to everyone’s liking……

You did just that in your last post where you claim what is called capitalism today isn't true to the definition. I would say that the definition from a pure form definition is the honest way to discuss ideals but it has to be done for all terms and ideologies.

Anarcho capitalist would argue that regulation and limits are not capitalism.

reply to post by daskakik


In case you missed it.

ETA: Capitalism is included in the list of ideologies which include corporatism.

by everything I showed you I have tried to explain how corporatism is NOT capitalism. It is always mistakenly (or purposely) labeled as capitalism when it goes against EVERYTHING capitalism needs to function properly. Like saying 80s rap is classical music, or emo is hard core...It is music yes, but has NOTHING to do with the other forms of music that are called "classical" or "hard core", if that makes sense. If I wanted people to associate 80s rap as refined music, or emo as being bad ass I would employ such a tactic..

EDIT;
Also what are you judging as a success. The US was not in debt and could easily grow in the 18th and 19th century since it was an agricultural country with room to expand into industrialization. If success lies in maintaining growth and sustaining your economic presence globally, corporatism has failed where capitalism did not.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz

I didn't. It is you vying for a pure form definition while not allowing others to do the same.

Again, other capitalists would argue that your inclusion of regulation and limits keeps your version from being capitalism as well.

I would say that the need for government to include regulation and limits proves that free market capitalism also failed.

reply to post by daskakik


well, I try to avoid "pure form" interpretations. But you are right, pure form capitalists would disagree with me.

Some regulation is good. Too much is bad. It really is a balancing act.

I would support SOME socialist ideals, but not the core socialist ideology in our country. I think the intended PURPOSE is functionality and adaptability in the end. Not Ideological purity.


EDIT:
in case you missed it.
EDIT;
Also what are you judging as a success. The US was not in debt and could easily grow in the 18th and 19th century since it was an agricultural country with room to expand into industrialization. If success lies in maintaining growth and sustaining your economic presence globally, then corporatism has failed where capitalism did not.