You are a confused little boy.. Communism is a form of fascism, and or dictatorship. Its very premise is the exploitation of the many by the few; i.e., you can't steal property and freedom without exploiting the people. The egalitarian goals of socialist communism are laughable at best when held up to the scrutiny of reality. Communism didn't die with the Soviet Union; we created the Soviet Union, and American communists made America in her likness(FDR). Do a little studying up on FDR and his "Raw Deal" for America, which was taken word for word from the Communist Manifesto . They ran cartoons in newspapers over in Russia depicting FDR as the first communist President of the U.S.. You need to study every last word of this quote: "If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite." Gary Allen, Author

 

 

tyciol 
Registered User
Posts: 1358
(7/21/05 5:46 pm)

Why the money?

Anyway, you can talk about what you want about Communism, similar people can make claims about capitalism. In this, people definately exploit the weak. I guess when it happens in communism, people just don't notice it, and it's a lot harder to do.

The face value of communism though, and what they would advertise, is the good aspects that I have stated. It is the foundation of the base theory, the applications just get abused though because they aren't logical in association with human nature.

 

 

HothSnake 
Sovereign Power
Posts: 1859
(7/20/05 8:55 am)

Quote:

---

Anyway, you can talk about what you want about Communism, similar people can make claims about capitalism.

---

Yes many ignorant people that have been educated by the government do make such erroneous claims, but those that have taken the time to actually study the matter have come to the obvious conclusion that despite the current propaganda in the media, capitalism and communism are exact opposites, thus not compatible in the least.

Quote:

---

The face value of communism though, and what they would advertise, is the good aspects that I have stated. It is the foundation of the base theory, the applications just get abused though because they aren't logical in association with human nature.

---

You're a funny guy... There aren't any good aspects of communism. That's like saying that there are good aspects to crime, or the mafia. Communism is predicated on thievery, and I can't find a single good thing about that. You have to get past all of the flowery bull that the ignorant like to spout in order to understand the true nature of communism. Strip it down from all of the "we're going to take care of the poor and the worker" horse crap, and you are left with "we are going to rob you blind". Robbing Peter to pay Paul is never a good thing. Theft should never be tolerated, especially from the government. Saying that the goals of communism are just being misapplied and misunderstood, and that deep down the ideal is good, is like saying that deep down the mafia does good things for society and that "Don" Corleone just misapplied the principles of grand theft and murder. Communism is nothing more than a glorified Ponzi scam.

Would you like to know the true origins of communism? Well, I'm going to tell you anyway. There was a Hegelian movement in Germany in the early 19th century (Hegel developed a philosophy of social consciousness and change-- thesis vs. antithesis to a synthesis.) To Hegel, our world is a world of reason. The state is Absolute Reason and the citizen can only become free by worship and obedience to the state. Hegel called the state the "march of God in the world" and the "final end". This final end, Hegel said, "has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state." Both fascism and communism have their philosophical roots in Hegelianism. He noted that history was about change, and that the mood and consciousness of the people were constently evolving by what he termed the "dialectic" into something more enlightened (note that these doctrines have their origins in mystic gnosticism, Kabalism, rosicruscianism, free masonry, knights templar, and Luciferianism, i.e, Satanism... Evolution also has its origins here). There was a group of young scholars and professors at the University of Berlin that were known as the "Young Hegelians". The man (William Huntington Russel) that founded the Skull and Bones Society and the CIA at Yale University, and Karl Marx were both left-wing "Young Hegelians", who believed that the establishment was corrupt and needed to be overhauled.

Quote:

---

When Russell returned to Yale in 1832, he formed a senior society with Alphonso Taft ('33). According to information acquired from a break-in to the "tomb" (the Skull and Bones meeting hall) in 1876, "Bones is a chapter of a corps in a German University.... General Russell, its founder, was in Germany before his Senior Year and formed a warm friendship with a leading member of a German society. He brought back with him to college, authority to found a chapter here." So class valedictorian William H. Russell, along with fourteen others, became the founding members of "The Order of Scull and Bones," later changed to "The Order of Skull and Bones".

---

These two men chose very different means of accomplishing this however, but it is my contention that they worked together. One sought to change the power structure through secret organizations (CIA, Skull and Bones, and free masonry) and the other sought change through revolt. This isn't the first time that this shadow group had influenced world events... It is evident that their intellectual ancestors were behind the French Revolution, and in fact you will find many of the same concepts used by the French revolutionists in the writings and works of Marx and Engels, used by Lenin and his Bolsheviks. It is also a well known fact that the Bolshevik Revolution was financed by the Bank of England and our beloved Federal Reserve.

Of course, it is known that most of our Presidents, including George W. Bush have been members of the Skull and Bones Society and the CIA. This organization has control of every powerful office in this country. It is truly a monopoly on power and wealth.

Communism also has its roots in anti-Semitism, for Marx was of Jewish decent, and despised his ancestral ties. He sought to remake himself into something other than the despised Jew, so his treatises on communism are an affront to the Jewish establishment (bourgeois) and Judaism, and sought to create a new social class with out ethnicity or religion that he termed the "Proletariat". But this smoke screen is apparent when it is observed that Jews are the biggest proponents of communism and Marxism. It became a useful thing for the Jews that controlled the auspices of power to play on the hatred that the masses had for the Jewish establishment, and thus it made it easy to further enslave the masses (Proletariat) by channeling their hatred for the Jewish establishment at their own freedoms and liberties. Give all of your freedoms to the State and the "Bougeois" won't be able to abuse you. In actuality, they were giving their freedoms to the "Bourgeois" so that they could be even more abused. It is the old Hegelian dialectical process mentioned above... The government causes the problem (thesis)... The masses become irritated and clamor for a solution (anti-thesis)... And the government answers the call and provides a solution, which usually entails a loss of freedom (synthesis). This is the essence of communism.

All of this should make the following quote make even more sense:

"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite." Gary Allen, Author


Here is a good article on the Skull and Bones Society that I took that quote above from: www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Skull_Bones.htm

tyciol 
Registered User
Posts: 1358
(7/21/05 5:46 pm)

Oy, sometimes I wonder if you try to win arguments through mass quantity

Communism to me is the concept of everyone working as hard as possible and everyone sharing equally and living equal lifestyles, help going to those who need it, etc.

It is easily abusable, and even if it wasn't, I don't agree with it because it would negate the possibility of extreme wealth for the elite.

The origins do not matter, nor how it has been abused.

Capitalism and communism ARE opposites, but both share the fact that as long as there are governments to enforce law, and an easily influenced populace unprotected by lies, that people will get abused and robbed.

HothSnake 
Sovereign Power
Posts: 1859
(7/20/05 8:55 am)

Quote:

---

Oy, sometimes I wonder if you try to win arguments through mass quantity

---

As you know, I am very thorough. You just don't like studying matters fully, and enjoy making specious arguments based on limited knowledge.

Quote:

---

Communism to me is the concept of everyone working as hard as possible and everyone sharing equally and living equal lifestyles, help going to those who need it, etc.

---

Why would I work as hard as possible if I get nothing for it? The only intelligent thing to do would be to work as little as possible because it will be stolen from me anyhow. You can't share equally because some people work harder than others. Some people will build a bigger house than their neigbors, shall we pass a law requiring everyone to have the same size and color of house, so that their neigbors don't get jealous? Oh I see, you want everyone to be equally as miserable. This is a strange aspiration.. Usually people aspire for something better, but apparently delusional communists hate themselves so much that they aspire for the miserable. "Let's make everyone poor".... "Wouldn't that be neat?" That is the nasty secret of communism. It is about self-hate. Its founder was a self-loathing Jew, and his goal was to destroy himself and all of those like him. That is the delusional propaganda espoused by communists, that you can build a good society on the egalitarian ideal of making everyone the same degree of impoverishment. This stupidity actually makes sense when you realize that the real goal of communism was to destroy the freedoms and liberties of the middle class, thus enslaving them.

"those who need it" Who are they? Who determines who they are? Doesn't everybody need food, clothing, and shelter?

Quote:

---

It is easily abusable

---

It IS abuse.

Quote:

---

I don't agree with it because it would negate the possibility of extreme wealth for the elite.

---

It negates the ability to LIVE! It is against life. Living is a necessary consquence of working for yourself and providing for yourself. Under such a system that would be impossible. You are constantly working for the betterment of someone else. This goes against all natural law.

Quote:

---

The origins do not matter, nor how it has been abused.

---

Of course they matter. That's like saying that the ingredients of your food don't matter as long as it tastes good.

Quote:

---

but both share the fact that as long as there are governments to enforce law, and an easily influenced populace unprotected by lies, that people will get abused and robbed.

---

You're confusing the two again.

 

tyciol 
Registered User
Posts: 1358
(7/21/05 5:46 pm)

Your analogies are flawed. A more correct one with food would be 'it doesn't matter who served the food as long as it is prepared well'. For example, George Orwell is a total racist ass, but he wrote a good book, so we won't condemn the book.

As for communism, I know it doesn't work. I'm saying that the ideals are fine. People are lazy so it will not work, and that is why it fails, and why it would be unfair. If everyone did work equally as hard, it would be fair, it would be a system based upon effort and not product. Unfortunately, for the reasons you have cited, it will fail.

That does not make the ideal immoral. Vegetarianism and pacifism are pretty moral too, but you'll still probably end up missing out on some nutrients and conquered by people with guns. Not if it proper nutrition is easily accessible and people are perfect, but the world is not.

HothSnake 
Sovereign Power
Posts: 1859
(7/20/05 8:55 am)

Quote:

---

Your analogies are flawed. A more correct one with food would be 'it doesn't matter who served the food as long as it is prepared well'. For example, George Orwell is a total racist ass, but he wrote a good book, so we won't condemn the book.

---

No, you just don't understand them as usual. Your so called "correction" is a loaded analogy. The conclusion is determined by the premise. We're talking about history and origins here. Your analogy doesn't even apply here. If you don't know the igredients that went into making your food, even if it tastes good, then you don't know if it is necessarily good for you to eat. It could have aspartame or some other poison in it. By comparison, if you don't understand the motives of the person or group that espouses a certain ideal, then you can't completely understand the ideal. Trying to understand an ideal by studying the thoughts of those that don't even understand it, is a bit crazy. It's like trying to understand Ronald Reagan by studying the writings of Walter Mondel. You can't remove a philosophical concept from its historical context. That is why you learn history along with your Greek philosophy in a beginners class. If George Orwell were a total racist ass, then it would show up in his writings. You can't seperate the person from his writing. Even journalistic writing has bias.

Quote:

---

People are lazy so it will not work, and that is why it fails, and why it would be unfair.

---

People are human, and they natrually seek to take care of and better themselves. Without this incentive, who in their right mind would work hard? What do you think work is? Any other form of work is called slavery and no one enjoys that.

Quote:

---

If everyone did work equally as hard, it would be fair, it would be a system based upon effort and not product. Unfortunately, for the reasons you have cited, it will fail.

---

If my mother were six foot ten and my father were picturesque, then I'd be seven feet tall. You're living in fantasy land here.

Quote:

---

That does not make the ideal immoral.

---

Theft is immoral.

Your analogy can't really apply here. It doesn't make much sense.

Quote:

---

Not if it proper nutrition is easily accessible and people are perfect, but the world is not.

---

That's the ticket.. You want the world to be perfect, but according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it ain't.