A message from 1969

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

During Reagan and Bush the 1st, Democrats had the House and Senate mostly locked up all 12 years. Hmmm.

Same with most of Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford. Hmmm. ETC.

Strange 😎

Party Control of the Presidency and Congress, 1933-2010

a reply to: underwerks


Try harder.

originally posted by: St Udio




the OP is hauling up a 'conservative/radical/ john-bircher' in this thread.... those 'bircher society' conservatives were pretty prescient (in hind sight huh? )

The John Birch Society?


Thanks I'll definitely check them out.

a reply to: 19Bones79
Communism and all other labels can be shortened to just two ....
Collectivism and individualism.

"G Edward Griffin on "Collectivism""
youtu.be...


This vid is just a week old.

a reply to: xuenchen

Oh yeah, sometimes I forget that you want to push all blame on the D party. It's all ''those guys'' fault. Shoulda known.

a reply to: xuenchen

Of course you were and so was I. The Establishment. The open doors between which ever party sat in the big house and the corporate powers that wanted to control the entire world to secure the blessings of profit for, The Establishment.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: 19Bones79

It’s not communism that’s coming, the mega rich aren’t going to give up their wealth. It’s not communism that China has, despite what they call it. It’s technocratic fascism.

The authoritarian merger of government and big business.

I can only give one star

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, the partisan control of the Presidency doesn't really tell the whole story. There was a 62 year period of time from the 1932 election until the 1994 mid terms where the Dems absolutely dominated both the House and Senate, with the GOP managing majorities for only four of those 62 years in the House and 10 in the Senate. The legislative agenda during those six decades was overwhelmingly driven by the Democrat politics of of era.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: 19Bones79

It’s not communism that’s coming, the mega rich aren’t going to give up their wealth. It’s not communism that China has, despite what they call it. It’s technocratic fascism.

The authoritarian merger of government and big business.

When will people realize that the label doesn't matter and was never intended to be anything but a power grab where you convince people to willingly give up their freedoms under the guise of 'equality and social justice'

You can call it whatever you want, but here is the basic process no matter what they decide to change the name to and get people like yourself arguing about terminology:

1. Incite a sense of social injustice, class strife, oppression ... whatever

2. Destroy traditions and twist historical records

3. Celebrate dysfunction and rejection of moral standards -- you are 'old fashioned' and 'stupid' if you follow closed-minded moral codes

4. Reject belief in the divine to the point of mocking those who do believe -- even Satan is celebrated in today's media/entertainment

5. Celebrate abnormal behavior over normal behavior -- in other words it's better and you will be promoted and recognized

6. Celebrate and promote broken family models -- single moms are awesome and empowered

7. Leverage any crisis or catastrophe to get people to willingly give up their freedoms and get accustomed to being controlled

8. Censor and control the narrative through state-run or state-sided media.

So stop playing this stupid game of "It's not real communism". Call it whatever you want. It's evil and those that go along with it and excuse it are promoting evil.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: 19Bones79

How is it that someone from 1969 speaks as if he had a time machine and describes events that you can easily see in the news on any given day?

.

It’s because you’re being manipulated by the same fear stoking propaganda. People have been using the same “communist” “socialist” scare tactics for over 50 years. And you all still fall for it.

It's kind of difficult to believe this is just"scare tactics" when the things he says in the video are actually playing out before our eye's today.

a reply to: Halfswede


6. Celebrate and promote broken family models -- single moms are awesome and empowered


I would say a lot of women do shoulder the burden of raising their children alone and hold a steady job and that makes them beyond awesome, but unfortunately those children do suffer from a lack of balance in their households.


When my wife and I first got involved she was losing the battle on all fronts. Her job alone wasn't good enough to stay in the same apartment and she was going to have to move to a very dangerous area next to a township to be able to afford living with two little kids under 4.

Her ex was unemployed and basically stalking and threatening her. He was harassing her so much she got Graves disease at the age of 32 and was weighing 38 kgs which is about 83 pounds.


When I moved in the kids were uncontrollable and the effort it took to restore some discipline was quite the mountain to climb and I got a lot of flack for my stern methods even from her but it made the difference.

The best part was putting that rabid son of a bitch in his place when he thought he could just walk up to me and dominate. He even had a go at me with his car once while I was on foot.

Her firstborn son drowned while visiting him in a clear case of negligence but the courts and social workers did their best to protect him and his rights. He basically locked the child in an enclosed swimming pool area while washing his car where he couldn't see him. We had years of court cases that basically wiped out any savings I had.


Worthless POS that isn't with us anymore. I piss on his grave.

a reply to: Itisnowagain


Very informative, thanks.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Don't misunderstand me. The point was broken families are celebrated and traditional ones are denigrated. The example I gave is single moms. The welfare system is designed to promote broken homes. The media, govt, and hollywood celebrate them and hold them up while making a mockery of the nuclear family that isn't riddled with divorce and dysfunction. People are encouraged to "try" at being a family without committing. Moms who stay at home are looked at as less than those who make a career.

It's about putting the broken and dysfunctional over the norm or ideal. This is just one of the stages.

a reply to: Halfswede

For sure I agree with you.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: 19Bones79
"How is it that someone from 1969 speaks as if he had a time machine and describes events that you can easily see in the news on any given day?"

It’s because you’re being manipulated by the same fear stoking propaganda. People have been using the same “communist” “socialist” scare tactics for over 50 years. And you all still fall for it.

Or... since it is well documented that your apparent mentors - these tacticians of old (Cloward and Piven being just two of many) - that have been announcing their intentions to the world this entire time - and that we have been warned about by people like Mr. Griffin - for generations knew very well, even stating as much in their writings, that it would take generations to accomplish their goals...

What we are seeing now is the final efforts toward the fruition of their goals.

Personally, I believe their efforts will ultimately fail just as miserably as they are themselves.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Of course the march to communism won't be called communism. Lenin said that over a hundred years ago.

The reason some of us say some people "don't know what communism or marxism or socialism means" is because they don't know what it means.

They are not difficult concepts. There have been millions of pages written about them over the last 150 years, from real entry level stuff to up-its-own-rectum theoretical stuff. Marxism, in particular, has a fairly precise meaning.

Instead of stopping to question and learn, too many people throw the labels at things they don't like or understand. Doing this doesn't further debate, or clarify issues, or shapes policy - it merely makes people look ignorant to people who do know what those things are.

Deny ignorance.

a reply to: Halfswede

That is exactly what Marxism, socialism and communism is - said no Marxist, socialist or communist ever.

Instead of making stuff up, why don't you listen and learn?

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: Halfswede

That is exactly what Marxism, socialism and communism is - said no Marxist, socialist or communist ever.

Instead of making stuff up, why don't you listen and learn?

The simplest thing to do in your case is ask literally ANY person who fled communism. I know many from both Soviet Union and China as well as Vietnam and Poland. A big part of my life is dedicated fighting the specter of communism. Don't think you really know so much because you have the theories down.

You are missing the whole point and I intentionally said you can call it whatever you want. It's a specter of many guises. Of course they didn't say they were going to do all those things. They sell a Utopian time-share that people will buy willingly. Everything in those doctrines is just flowery salesmanship, and I repeat, was NEVER meant to be a real form of governance. What they did and are doing is exactly what I stated though. Look at what they did and what happened in EVERY case, not what they said. People who buy the sales pitch are exactly the useful idiots they want.

Instead of arguing over terminology and semantics and treating them like valid theories, why don't you WATCH and learn. Jim Jones had a pretty good sales pitch too. Pro tip: none of his doctrine was anything like what happened. No kool aide and sexual abuse mentioned.

In the future, it will be very very clear what is behind it all. You can deny it all you want and call it whatever you want. It changes its name and form whenever people catch on and it takes on a negative connotation.

Listen to what G Edward Griffin says about democracy in this interview:

It’s not the identities or party affiliations of these people that matters. It’s what they believe, what ideology they hold.

Their ideology has a name. It’s called collectivism, a concept that government is master, and people must obey because it’s for their own good. It’s pointless to get rid of one collectivist only to be replaced by another.

freedomforceinternational.org...

originally posted by: Halfswede

You are missing the whole point and I intentionally said you can call it whatever you want. It's a specter of many guises.

You seem to be missing your own point.

If you call a cow a horse, it doesn't become a horse. It's still a cow.

If you call fascism communism, it doesn't become communism. It's still fascism.

Take North Korea. What does Juche have to do with Marxism?

Take China. Look at all the ideological twists and turns it's taken since the civil war. Look at the way Milton Friedman, of all people, got involved in the late 80s and again in the early 1990s. What does a system shaped in part by Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics have to do with communism, socialism or Marxism?

This isn't arguing about semantics or terminology. This is about using words to clearly communicate what you mean instead of thrashing about in a cloud of vagueness.