Communism in Our Democracy? Please Shred this one!

[sagas4]

All who have read Lysander Spooner, Herbert Spencer, Harry Browne, Marc Stevens are likely well aware of the scam called States. Several years ago while researching I came across the communist manifesto. Thought it would be interesting to read so I briefly skimmed the book. Now I don't recall positively if these quotes were in there, but it does make for interesting discussion.

Feel free to start chewin on this thread and spitting it out. (Just wondering what others thoughts and commets are on this topic). Thanks. ~Sagas.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Democracy is indespensible to socialism"
- V.I. Lenin

"Socialism leads to communism" - Karl Marx

"These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Neverthless in most advances countries, the following will be generaly applicable". - Karl Marx

Liberty Zone 10 Planks Link: (Same as above link) www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

[KaosTheory]

I'm not sure what you mean by shred. What is your point of view here?

To me, it's obvious that these planks serve no one but the money changers. The weakness of the money changers is the truth in the hands of the masses. These planks seem to remove the threat very effectively.

It is also obvious that our world exists in a perpetual state of war... on many levels.

[Klintock]

Most modern corporations operate on classic communist lines. Remember, there is no McDonald's either. It's the same con, but with lower human cost.

There is a central body making decisions, that creates five year plans and controls all operations from the centre.

If you object to what you are being asked to do.....goodbye. Remember that this environment is where a lot of people live every day. It's normal for them to follow along to orders they don't fully understand, to have no say. It's not that big a jump from this to following along in other areas of life.

Where did they learn this? School! - with it's marvellous arbitary distinctions "grades" and other teachings in the ways of hallucination. This isn't bad in itself, but teaching hallucination without informing that that is what's happening is evil imho.

That "I've just grown three heads" feeling you get when trying to get someone else to understand that "there is no state" isn't there by accident, it's deliberately created and propogated.

It's quite right that you can leave these organisations whenever you like, but for a lot of people it's back to the illusion of choice again. Hmmm do I be a robot at corporation x....or corporation y?

Or of course, you can set up on your own...with these giant production hoovers as your competitiors. Good luck in court against them is all I can say. Hey, you might even make it, do really well and create one yourself. So now, instead of being a robot at someone else's place you are now creating your own.

Competition leads to a victor. Eventually, one corporation will take over all the others, hire guards and become in effect a government.

The really scary thing is that there is no evil conspirator in the background, pulling strings. The game of money is being played as though it's real, and in effect the game is in charge. The best players protect the game and make sure you have to play so they can remain the best players.

[lazerwood]

Klintock,

You wrote:

"Competition leads to a victor. Eventually, one corporation will take over all the others, hire guards and become in effect a government".

Yes sir, you are correct!

In the "ownership" posts the "fatal flaw" of what is the inevitable result of "ownership" is revealed. I believe the instant that the very first "fence" went up somewhere on earth, where the first human said this is "mine" and you can't come on this "turf", was the "beginning" of all of what we have to deal with now. The error was compounded when all those around that human allowed him to get away with it. As previously stated, that allowed the "biggest and baddest" to eventually end up with it "all"...which is where we are today.
If one would study the native american, they knew the solution to the "problem". NO ONE owns the land, air, and the living things upon that land. Of course, the "biggest and baddest" destroyed them and their "mindset" also.

You also wrote:

"The really scary thing is that there is no evil conspirator in the background, pulling strings."

I believe we find ourselves in this physical realm fighting battles that clearly have a spiritual beginning to them. I believe there appears to be an all out, winner take all, battle that originates in the spiritual realm and translates into motives in the very souls of the participants on this planet. The participants have what we call "good or "evil" motives, and carry out in the physical what is in their inner being.

The present "rulers" of this prison planet are VERY deep into "spiritual matters". Check out "Bohemian Grove", free masonry, "skull and bones", satanism, the list goes on and on. They take "spiritual" matters rather seriously.

I'm really not trying to turn this into a "religious" post, but this quote comes to mind...

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places".
Eph. 6:12


BTW, glad to have you "aboard" on the forum Klintock!

[sagas4]

KaosTheory said:

I'm not sure what you mean by shred. What is your point of view here?

To me, it's obvious that these planks serve no one but the money changers. The weakness of the money changers is the truth in the hands of the masses. These planks seem to remove the threat very effectively.

It is also obvious that our world exists in a perpetual state of war... on many levels.

KT,

In the forum Ediquette Marc, states, "I encourage the posting of particular patriot methods or arguments for the sole purpose of pulling them apart and showing why they are irrational and, or ineffective." Communism is just another form of statist belief. The information was posted for that purpose.

You say that the planks serve the money changers; and their weakness is the truth in the hands of the masses. You're on the right track in discussing what was posted.

Thanks.

Klintlock, and Lazerwood have made some great comments on the topic as well.

Thanks.

[Darren Dirt]

Circus Strongman 1:Hey, you got your Communism in my Democracy!

Circus Strongman 2:Hey, you got your Democracy in my Communism!

Together:Wow, this tastes great!

Legislative Members:Wow, democratic socialism tastes great!

- - -

This topic title reminds me that a few weeks ago I was woken up by some annoying muse or something, had to jot down a few words which eventually turned into a minor rant, complete with a few Wikipedia references to show the "facts" behind my "opinions"

Called it "Which Side Won The Cold War?".

Here's a hint, it weren't "us"

I'll post it when I get home from work today.

[JUDGE MENTAL]

lazerwood said:

I believe the instant that the very first "fence" went up somewhere on earth, where the first human said this is "mine" and you can't come on this "turf", was the "beginning" of all of what we have to deal with now.

What about all NON-human living organisms.Are they in any way to "blame" for the current state (no pun intended) of affairs ?

J M

[weis]

Well, If demo/Soc/Comm (DSC) depends on their being a STATE; and there are no material facts or evidence which exist to demonstrate that there is a STATE, then how can there be demo/soc/comm(DSC) in existence?

[lazerwood]

Judge Mental,

You wrote:

"What about all NON-human living organisms.Are they in any way to "blame" for the current state (no pun intended) of affairs" ?

Are you refering to plants and animals? I don't think they have any input into our "legal" situation. I'm not really sure I understand your question...

[JUDGE MENTAL]

lazerwood said:

Judge Mental,

You wrote:

"What about all NON-human living organisms.Are they in any way to "blame" for the current state (no pun intended) of affairs" ?

Are you refering to plants and animals? I don't think they have any input into our "legal" situation. I'm not really sure I understand your question...

Just me thinking aloud to the part of your post which I quoted.I may have misunderstood,but you implied (to me) that the first human putting up a fence was the root of all (today`s) evil.The original sin if you like?

The question I posed to that implication was of the contrary view.Namely,is it not "natural" to defend your self/own/"property"? Isn`t that action inherent in living organisms?

J M

[lazerwood]

Putting up the first fence started what we see around us as known as "countries". It's just a logical extension of the "fence". It says "this is mine, and you can't come here without my permission, and/or paying me tribute". The native societies around the world seeemed to do well without having to claim the Earth as their's personally.

I didn't say self or personal possessions couldn't or shouldn't be defended.

[Darren Dirt]

Darren said:

...
- - -

This topic title reminds me that a few weeks ago I was woken up by some annoying muse or something, had to jot down a few words which eventually turned into a minor rant, complete with a few Wikipedia references to show the "facts" behind my "opinions"

Called it "Which Side Won The Cold War?".

Here's a hint, it weren't "us"

I'll post it when I get home from work today.

Okay so I forgot yesterday. But I am posting it now (yay!) but be warned it is very "first-draft"y and I will eventually clean it up a bit but you should get the gist. Hopefully it makes sense somewhat ;D


At least something to think about, that's for sure. So much unplugging and waking up after the gubmint-brainwashing "The 12 Year Sentence", as one book calls it.

So call up your "Social Studies" teacher and ask them which side won



===========================
[] = get further information, detail reference, etc.
===========================


Which Side Won The Cold War?
----------------------------

The "Cold War" is over, right? So which side was the victor? Communism or democracy?

Or is that the correct question?

In the excellent book, "Planned Chaos"[](*DS* ISBN, AMAZON LINK LATER), written shortly after the end of World War II, economist Ludwig Von Mises (a vocal opponent of the Keynesian belief in interventionist government policy) thoroughly and objectively examined the history, and the alleged strengths and successes, of socialism. Mises observed that a distinction between that and communism was actually a very recent invention, motivated primarily by the failure of socialism, which now - in a focused public relations ploy - was being labelled as "not true communism".

This theory is supported elsewhere, for example inside the Wikipedia definition for Communism: "As a political movement, communism is a branch of the broader socialist movement. The communist movement differentiates itself from other branches of the socialist movement through various things - such as, for example, the communists' desire to establish a communist system after the socialist one, and their commitment to (possibly violent) revolutionary strategies for overthrowing capitalism. For much of the 20th century, some countries were often called 'communist states' by people living in other parts of the world. However those societies referred to themselves as socialist countries, and their ruling Communist Parties claimed to have established a socialist, democratic system, with the aim of eventually reaching communism. However, these countries were generally not seen as democratic by anyone except their leadership, and were not seen as socialistic by any (non-communist) socialists living outside their borders. In fact, most socialists strongly opposed them. Due to these reasons (as well as a number of others), the term 'communist states' was invented to refer to those countries." ("Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism, Thu17Feb2005 8am.)

The following differences between communism and socialism are listed in their respective Wikipedia definitions:
[] [](*DS* DO THIS LATER)

What was the Communist Manifesto? In London in 1847, at the second congress of an organization known as the "Communist League", Karl Marx (born 1818) and Friedrich Engels (born 1820) were mandated to produce the group's manifesto, to lay out its purposes and program. "The Manifesto suggested a course of action for a proletarian revolution to overthrow capitalism and, eventually, to bring about a classless society. ... The program described in the Manifesto -- that is to say, the policies that the Communists of its day sought to implement -- is termed socialism." ("The Communist Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Manifesto, Thu17Feb2005 8am.)

In other words, the Communist Manifesto contained 10 simple policies that, if implemented in a society, would result in what its authors considered true "socialism". Unbeknownst to most in our modern day, the formal founders of the term "communism" defined it as synonymous with the ideological concept of "socialism".

So what were we fighting against in the cold war? What principles, goals, policies, programs? What are these 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto?

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
("Communist Manifesto 10 Planks", www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html, Thu17Feb2005 8am.)


--- OOPS I exceeded 10,000 characters, so I split this into 2 parts ---

[Darren Dirt]

---PART 2/2---

Which Side Won The Cold War?

. . .

Notice that #2 is a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax". It is easiest to examine the history of the United States, as it generally has the most information available. The following pattern applies in principal to other so-called "democratic" nations, including Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

The United States government introduced its income tax in 1913[](*DS* verify this later), and it was happily consented to by the majority of Americans. This may seem surpirsing today, however at that time it was promised to be applied only to the very richest of the rich, around 1 in 271 Americans. Less than the top one half of one percent of the populace were expected to pay taxes at first. In other words, 99.5% of Americans were not affected in any way by the passing of the first American income tax legislation, as they did not earn enough income to qualify, and therefore paid no income tax.
Also, even for those to whom the income tax applied, the rate of taxation ranged from only 1% to a maximum of 7%. The following table comes from the original 1040 Tax Form of 1913, showing the shocking U.S. income tax rates from that year:

[]"True Origin of the 1040 Income Tax Form", Mike Jittlov, www.wizworld.com/taxes, lastModified 04/05/2001.



Over time, of course, the legislators justified increases in the tax rates, and they also lowered the income level required to be taxable. In addition, over time many other hidden taxes were added to the daily life of the average American, often with euphemistic labels "licensing fees" or other levies.

It is important to keep in mind that one of the primary triggers for the "Boston Tea Party" was the British proposing a tax of less than 10% [] (*DS*research later for more details), which the Americans at that time rightfully interpreted to be unfair, and essentially involuntary servitude.

In the same way, the other 9 planks of the Communist Manifesto can be examined and compared to modern America. In fact, this has been done by countless individuals, as evidenced by the hundreds of websites that result from a simple search of the phrase. Most of the sites list the planks and, one by one, show how they are all but fulfilled in America of today.

But how can this be possible? America's political system is democracy, not communism, right? Well, this is a fallacy, a false choice.

The cold war was not communism challenging democracy, but rather capitalism. It was a difference in primarily economics, not politics. And in addition, America was not founded as a democracy (which inevitably deteriorates into a oligarchy, oligopoly, or other form of mobacracy). America was founded as a constitutional republic - a republic whose legislation and governmental control was to be severely limited, and to be enacted in ways that were explicitly listed as permitted in the constitution. In other words, if the U.S. federal government were to act in any way contrary to, or absent from, the constituion, that would be illegal according to its own laws.

But this has of course occurred time and again, thus making karl Marx's dream of a communist nation a near reality, in this country that claims to be a model of democracy, when in reality it is nothing but democratic socialism. A "social democracy" advocates strong labor laws, nationalization of major industries, and a strong welfare state; while a "democratic socialism" is similar, but is committed especially to the re-distribution of wealth and the nationalisation of major industry (see Wikipedia entries, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism).

America, if not an outright "democratic socialism", is certainly not free market capitalism, and at most might be called "state capitalism" (simply another way of describing a lesser degree of socialism). And of course, as Ludwig Von Mises demonstrated at a time much nearer to changing globally significant ideological events than any pundit of today, socialism is for all intents and purposes, communism.

So, which side of the Cold War - communism or free market capitalism - was the victor?

Which economic system has its definitive attributes currently up and running, legislated by the government of the "most powerful nation on Earth", and - most significantly and most troubling - accepted and endorsed by the majority of its people?

Which side won the Cold War?

In Christ For Truth,
Darren Dirt.

Thu17Feb2005 8am

[JUDGE MENTAL]

You`ve been a busy boy D D ;D

Ayn Rand was more succinct on the supposed differences:

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."

J M

[Busy Boy]

Yeah, what Rand was saying is almost a paraphrase of Marx himself or others... they openly acknowledged, in the 1800s thru the 1930s, that (a) communism and (b) socialism were the same system, only achieved through (a) violent overthrow of the government and (b) "natural" evolution of democracy/capitalism.

compare for example:

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Communism

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Socialism <-- check out #4!

and *especially*
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Democratic%20Socialism
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Social%20Democracy

"Social democracy is a political ideology emerging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from supporters of Marxism who believed that the transition to a socialist society could be achieved through democratic evolutionary rather than revolutionary means."

Behind-the-scenes sales pitch back then must've been essentially: "It's like Marxism, without all the bloodshed, so it'll take a little longer..."

- - -

(here's something I just "threw together"...)

RECIPE FOR SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (serves 20-300 million)

INGREDIENTS:
-democracy
-government intervention
-Marxist sympathizers
-legislature and judiciary (must appear to be separate and distinct from each other)
-class differences (created as necessary, or at least encouraged by shills-posing-as-group-leaders )
-external threats (create illusory or controlled -terrorists, if real threats not available)
-revisionist historians (to offset bubbling caused by natural scrutiny of free thinkers)

DIRECTIONS:
Pour democracy into bowl visible to rest of world. Season with government intervention to dilute purity of free market system.
Mix together legislative and judiciary bodies, subtly folding into mixture small quantity of Marxist sympathizers, then adding equal parts instigate-class-differences and create-illusory-external-threats, and allowing time for willingness to give up liberty for security.
Combine remaining ingredients, adding revisionist historians in relative proportion to dumbed-down educational system. Allow mixture time to rise to empirical power. Serve to subjects in a prison paid for by their own progressive taxes.

Mmm, sounds yummy!