Are all Socialists Considered Illuminati members by US posters

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Every Globalist Agenda Book ends in Socialism - read a book...more state control not less!




posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by BABYBULL24
 


Yeh from "None Dare Call it a Conspiracy" on wards before that with William Guy Carr or Nesta Webster.
Stop sucking in John Birch Bull# may be and get some real info, i wont hold my breath!. Btw the UN HQ is still there in NY and no Truthers have yet tried to storm it or attack it in any way what so ever i think that is kind of strange considering it is suppose to be the bastion of world gov and all socialist evil! Maybe truthers are all talk.
edit on 5-10-2013 by Theprimordialocker because: edit



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Theprimordialocker
 


A true Truther can never attack anyone, he can only be attacked...

Non-Violence is the way of the Truther!!



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Theprimordialocker
 


Socialism???

No, CAPITALISM.

Illuminati- triangle- pryramid- pyramid scheme- western interest banking conglomeration- rich get richer, poor stay poor.

It might be better than feudalism but capitalism is full of problems. Not only in capitalism can you generally get rich only if you only have money but capitalism spreads and causes other countries to also become capitalist to compete with the growing capitalism to beat it at it's own dirty game.

Look at savings accounts that accrue money just by sitting there. Since when does money grow on trees? This concept in itself is flawed right from the start because if you extract something out of the whole, it is no longer a whole and if you expect that if there is a pool of resources and currency in an economy that is supposed to remain balanced but you have money literally creating itself... some where else there is going to be a hole.

Our stupid little saving accounts don't accrue much but when you look at the fat cat accounts...all they do is accrue more money by sitting there.

There will always be a cash vacuum throughout capitalism... a loss somewhere. Forget just checking accounts but any kind of interest where money simply grows over time, and the production of anything.

yes, it is worldwide now but will eventually collapse in a big way... it has in the past and then something happens to offset the bad math. like war.

worldwide indeed but one particular banking conglomeration has made it legendary in our age...and it is the one that controls the US economy...and others.

Illuminati is the ones that are still holding the crumbling pillars in place and they have been controlling many things worldwide for quite some time and seem so desperate to destroy us all like a freaked out frustrated kid crying about his math homework and just guessing at random numbers hoping to get lucky.

They were warned about this LONG ago because common sense should see the flaw in the system.
There are many critics of capitalism. Many. And for good reason. They knew the threat to this system would be socialism, which is why they have been fighting socialism like the boogie man, but it wouldn't be so bad it weren't for CAPITALISM...which makes all the corporate slaves poor. Capitalism has been making socialism play it's game but capitalism is the pyramid.

They were told it was like a pyramid scheme and that eventually it would bottom out to widespread dept... and a few assholes at the top with worthless money, which is why the rich has been hording gold to prepare for the collapse because it has real value. So has socialism because it knew capitalism would pull that stunt as well.

Instead of thinking that it would go that way, they saw themselves in the end game as sitting at the top of the pyramid with power... not funny money. That is how they envisioned it.

maybe we will see how the story ends.

one would think that keeping your values is what would have been the victor.

edit on 6201331AM10AM22p14America/Chicago by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Lingweenie
Many countries have been under the control of socialism. Most ended up collapsing.

Sure it may be working just fine now, but can you say that without a doubt this system can be sustained?


Well, the Netherlands does have 422 years so far, and counting...

Not that I am a fan of socialism, but there are certainly examples of where it has worked well.

edit on 5/10/2013 by Saurus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 04:43 AM
link   

BABYBULL24
Every Globalist Agenda Book ends in Socialism - read a book...more state control not less!


This is probablytrue, and I think the success or failure of a socialist system depends on the reason why the state wants more control...

If it's genuinely for the good of the people, and nothing more, then it's okay, but if it is for control reasons, it's bound to fail.

edit on 5/10/2013 by Saurus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


We don't work for the government. The government works for us.
And sometimes we forget that.

And when we do forget this, that's when a country fails.

edit on 5/10/2013 by Saurus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Theprimordialocker
 




Was the average German citizen of the 1930s responsible for the war crimes of the Nazi party......NO the common progressive liberal is not the ruling class but you had better believe your masters are using your ignorance to take away not only liberty but what chance you had at the American dream.




And just to make it clear progressive filth run both parties and the outcome if the other guy had won would be exactly the same. Hopefully our collective chains will fall lightly on our shoulders.
edit on 5-10-2013 by SubTruth because: tired
edit on 5-10-2013 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Theprimordialocker
 





This is a serious thread topic, it has to be since reactionary americans are so absurd especially over this universal health care bill obama is trying to implement


I don't believe that most Americans think Socialism is brought to us by the Illuminati. At least, I have never equated the two.

Currently, the new healthcare law has no noticeable effect on me. My family had excellent health coverage before the healthcare law went into effect. I don't have any plans to make any changes, because of the law.

I actually voted for Obama twice, because he promised to make affordable healthcare available to all Americans. I have not any personal experience with this new law, nor do I usually worry about what is affordable. I do however feel concerned that people are finding healthcare unaffordable. I had expected low wage earners to have little or no financial obligation for their healthcare. I did not expect anyone to see their premiums increase.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Saurus

Lingweenie

I think it's funny how people in the U.S.A. are pretty much scared of communism or socialism. Just like we're pumped full of fear about countless other things.

Socialism or communism isn't evil, or wrong. And Capitalism isn't either. But I think most sane people can agree that these three systems have shown not to work at 100%.



What do you mean?

The Netherlands is a fully functional Socialist country, and it works just fine.

edit on 4/10/2013 by Saurus because: (no reason given)


No it isn't. Holland is a 'supposedly free market' democracy, like most of the countries in Europe. The political centre of mass is probably most correctly described as 'social liberalism'.

It definitely is not 'socialist'. In the same way that nothing the democrats are doing is really 'socialist' either.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   



I actually voted for Obama twice, because he promised to make affordable healthcare available to all Americans. I have not any personal experience with this new law, nor do I usually worry about what is affordable. I do however feel concerned that people are finding healthcare unaffordable. I had expected low wage earners to have little or no financial obligation for their healthcare. I did not expect anyone to see their premiums increase.


I am curious, how did you expect it to be accomplished? Direct taxation rises on all taxpayers to cover provision of insurance for low earners?

I'm a Brit and I'm quite happy with the NHS, however i'm under no illusion that its free. Its free at the point of need, but I pay for it with a direct deduction from every pay packet I earn. Nothing is free.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Theprimordialocker

Ron Paul does the brotherly Mason thing!

henrymakow.com...

All talk of socialism this is not so much about advocating for any ism rather than attempting to point out that americans are paranoid of that word. Infact i would rather make this thread a common sense thread about well what i posted it for in the first place the stupidity tying illuminti constantly to socialism which ic in so many in truther libotard places. So let this thread be on Ron and Rand maybe and less about socialists.


Except Ron Paul isn't a mason. Not that that even matters. Do you get off on calling people "Libotards"?
When you grow up, you will see how stupid that really is.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

reply to post by justwokeup

No it isn't. Holland is a 'supposedly free market' democracy, like most of the countries in Europe. The political centre of mass is probably most correctly described as 'social liberalism'.

It definitely is not 'socialist'. In the same way that nothing the democrats are doing is really 'socialist' either.


Where do you draw the line?

No country is 100% anything. By your argument, the United States would not be capitalist, because it offers some a state pension.

I would call a country that is predominantly socialist in it's policies 'socialist'', whether or not it has aspects of other political ideologies as well.

Also, 'supposedly free market' does contain a not-insignificant qualifying word. ;-)

edit on 5/10/2013 by Saurus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Saurus
 


Socialism is "an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy". That really isn't present at all, so its not a socialist government.

What exists in the UK (and other EU nations) is a welfare state which is a product of social liberalism, a strain of liberalism really. The British welfare state was created by the Liberal Party.

When we start seeing industries re-nationalised and corporations passing into collective ownership we can start talking about there being an outbreak of 'socialism'.

If we cant reclaim the true meanings of words then any political debate is doomed to fail, which is probably by design.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


Honestly, I don't think that the major problem is with the new healthcare law. Instead, I find flaws with the overall healthcare industry of the United States. Allowing for-profit corporations to manage, operate, and own hospitals inflates the costs of medical care. Where does this added cost go to? I would imagine to the corporations and their shareholders. Does that improve healthcare? I don't believe so. Does anyone believe that feeding a bloated corporation can have any benefit towards a patients health?



Health Costs. How the U.S. compares with other countries.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Saurus
 


"Also, 'supposedly free market' does contain a not-insignificant qualifying word. ;-) "

Indeed. Neither the US nor Europe is operating free market capitalism. A system where the powerful leaders of corporate entities rotate positions into and out of the government and use funds raised through taxation to bail them out of their incompetence is definitely not a free market. In a free market they would have fallen and been eaten up by smaller better run competitors.

I'm not entirely sure what it is. The words Kleptocracy and Banana Republic spring to mind :-)



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by tamusan
 


In truth, i cant really comment. I haven't spent enough time looking at the US healthcare industry to have an educated opinion about the specifics.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


I had believed that the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. Has that changed or does your government still fit into that category?

My ideas about national healthcare, and non-profit hospitals come from my experiences with Japan. Japan is a constitutional monarchy, the last time I checked anyway. I have a spouse visa for Japan, which grants access to their national healthcare system.

5 myths about healthcare in the rest of the world.



The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality is high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are better than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person annually on health care; the United States spends more than $7,000.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Theprimordialocker
This is a serious thread topic, it has to be since reactionary americans are so absurd especially over this universal health care bill obama is trying to implement causing so much chaos in the land of the free.
So do you all believe thus to be the case! If so i gladly admit my membership and secret handshake although I strongly doubt they will since most masons here think i am nuts and would never admit me!.
edit on 3-10-2013 by Theprimordialocker because: (no reason given)


I'm neither a mason nor politically active (no party membership or affiliation though I do vote) but full heartedly label myself a SOCIALIST.
edit on 2013/10/5 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)
edit on 2013/10/5 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   



tamusan

And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person annually on health care; the United States spends more than $7,000.


This is comparing apples with pears. The exchange rate (and Big-Mac index, for example) is not taken into account.Statistic and figures are easy to manipulate. One must be especially careful of taking everything you read with a pinch of salt.

As an illustration, with the South African exchange rate, we spent under $300 per person annually, but the care offered is not less that that offered in the UK, for example. (It costs ca. 11 South African Rands to buy a dollar.) And yet, the South African health care system is terribly mismanaged.

It's all about exchange rate and Big-Mac indexes when you're comparing costs in different countries.

edit on 5/10/2013 by Saurus because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join