How are we doing on the road to Communism???
Posted June 12th, 2008 by christopher X
output
Communist Rules for Revolution
1- Corrupt the young; get them away from religion.
2- Break down the old moral virtues.
3- Encourage civil disorders… and a soft government attitude towards crime.
4- Divide the people into hostile groups (race, religion, etc.).
5- Get the people’s minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sex, etc.
6- Get control of all media.
7- Destroy people’s faith in their leaders.
8- Cause the registration of all firearms…To eventually confiscate them.
Communist Manifesto 1848
1- Abolition of private property
2- Heavy progressive income tax
3- Abolition of rights of inheritance
4- Confiscation of property rights
5- Central bank
6- Government ownership of communication and transportation
7- Government ownership of factories and agriculture
8- Government control of labor
9- Corporate farms, regional planning
10- Government control of education
Bookmark/Search this post with:
BRACE FOR IMPACT!!
BRACE FOR IMPACT!!
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
----------------------------------------
Ron Paul Supporter Since 1997
“We have allowed our nation to be over taxed and over regulated and over run by bureaucrats, the founders would be ashamed of us for what were putting up with” Ron Paul
The apparent chaos in Africa is really planned.
Africa is the exact opposite of anarchism, it is the prime example of interference by governments. If you study the history of Africa and it's colonization, you know that it was basically divided up by France, England, Holland and Portugal. These countries created conflict in order to conquer and control the vast riches of the continent. There have been revolutions against the European rulers, but usually instead of providing freedom for the people they just change regimes, whose leaders are really just puppets. This plays right into the hands of the European Community which depends on cheap labor and raw materials.
grant
Why do Anarchist always get a bad name?
As long as there is a limited number of States there will be authoritarian statism. Now the goal of globalist (archists) is to reduce the number of States to only one, this of course will be the NWO, with God only knows who as it's leader. The goal of many of our founding fathers was of course contrary to the NWO. Their beliefs tended to side with the anarchists, who, of course, have a goal opposite to a globalist(archist), which is to increase the number of States to the point where there are as many States as there are individuals. Hence the term The united "States" of America, is and sounds better than "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". I believe many of us need to wake up to this fact, and decide, and especially for those who are architects, what kind of society we need to build.
grant
The term has become very emotionally charged
There has been incorrect widespread use of the word--people think it means "chaos."
In actuality, it means without rulers (a-narchy).
I myself don't use the term. I'm a zero-government libertarian.
I am a self-described anarchist
Fortune Favors the Bold
As I see government as being equivalent to coercive force, which i see as immoral. I recognize that practically, the absence of government would lead to smaller, competing governments, but more TOTAL government (violent groups or individuals forming, kind of like most of Africa), so I do not advocate abolishing the government as the best road to anarchy. Rather I see it as a personal spiritual conviction.
By the way, the "Anarchy" symbol, the A in the circle with the line through it means "Order through Anarchy"
That's a myth
If you are implying that a State always reappears, that is simply not true.
Yes, it always has historically. But that's only because the majority of people believed that it was needed.
Let's be sure we are fighting for the right thing.
This is why we must be careful to understand exactly what we are fighting for in this R3VOLtution. Are we fighting to protect the interests of the state. Those who fought the Revolutionary war believed they would be free from the state and taxes, only to discover the new government could tax their farms. Washington did not recognize allodial title. This lead to the writting of the Constitution which allowed the government to tax and to take on debt. Not a very wise thing to be fighting for is it? So perhaps we should change that once we replace the government.
As for protecting land rights, I agree we should, but we should also divide the land the government currently holds, which is over 50% of the total area of the whole country in term of title and mineral rights. I don't want to go through a Revolution only to discover after we win that the state will continue to own the land or that a select group of people will be given title to the land. We will have gained nothing except a new regime.
grant
Articles of Confederation
While allodial title was an underlying reason why the Constitution for the United States of America was written, it wasn't because Washington wouldn't recognize the rights of the individuals that owned their land.
The Constitution was written because the Articles of Confederation were deeply flawed. The Articles made each individual state it's own Sovereign not beholden to the central government. So, nothing was being accomplished and the state of the nation was getting as bad or worse than it was when we were under British rule. Infact, during this period Rhode Island was often refered to as Rogue Island because they stood in the way of everything the Union of States were trying to accomplish.
That is why the Constitution for the United States of America was written - to recognize the individual as the Sovereign.
A good historical fiction that shows how bad life was under the Articles of Confederation is the Prelude to Glory series. http://www.amazon.com/Our...
Land ownership is what this country was founded on. The right to own your property.
http://teamlaw.org/
90 miles an hour....
pop/rap/latin radio blaring...
THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT
THE MORE I LOVE MY GUNS
FourWindsTradingPost
Not quite right for me.
.
Fascism seems more likely because, in theory, the people own everything in a communist system. Rarely happens of course, but that was the idea. Facism comes from the top down; Nazi germany and Italy under Mussolini were examples.
The only real difference
The only real difference between fascism and communism is the spelling. I think you got it wrong on the people owning everything the communist govt owns everything. There is no personal property in communism. What it all boils down to is the same people were responsible for both communism and fascism, so its likely they`ll use what they think works best from both ideologies. Adolf didnt invent socialism, he just enforced it. The zionists orginated socialism, communism and capitalism. We already been thrown 2 strikes so now we are facing a strikeout.
Well...
they have the right candidates lined up to further the goal.
By now we know enough about Hussein Obama to know that he could easily be a member of the Communist Party. The more we know, the clearer that becomes. Guilt by association is a valuable tool – that is why criminals of all kinds denounce it – because when you lie down with dogs you will get up with fleas. And we know that Hussein lies down with violent, revolutionary Communists who have bombed and killed in this country and abroad.
His Communists here have boasted about that. They say their only regret is that they could not do more (they were on the lam), could not bomb and kill more Americans. Remember that he has gone to help his cousin in Kenya, Raila Odinga, who has burned down many Christian church buildings and killed many Christians in his attempt to seize political power in that country.
His childhood mentor was a member of the Communist Party. And Hussein has done as a senator what a Communist would do. His “Global Poverty” Act (S. 2433) would “redistribute the wealth,” a Communist hallmark, would take billions of dollars annually from the United States – money we don’t have – and hand it over to the Communist United Nations, all pursuant to the Communist Manifesto.
So the Communists deserve to be dancing in the streets. Mohammedan lunatics have been committing acts of terror against us on behalf of their sex, money and power racket for at least thirty years, but the Reds have won the Democrud nomination for a graduate of a Mohammedan school, a man named Hussein, most of whose closest relatives are Mohammedans. The genius of the people who did this is breathtaking.
http://www.newswithviews....
Where have you been?
We have been taking "billions of dollars annually from the United States – money we don’t have – and hand [ing] it over to the Communist United Nations" for fifty years. We fund the IMF, the UN, the World Bank, and on top of that give direct aid to dictators and communists of every stripe. We started funding communism way back with our support of Stalin during WWII. We were providing wheat to the Russians at the same time we were fighting them in Viet Nam. We have given aid to China. We even gave aid to Pol Pot for God's sake.
Suggesting that somehow Obomba is the first commie symp to occupy the White House is hilarious. And historically wrong. This is just propaganda to try and get people to vote for McCain out of fear of Obomba. Don't fall for it. They ALL suck and have sucked for a long time.
I've seen the manifesto stuff
before but could you provide us with a link to the information on the upper half of your post?
here is a link with the footnote on where to find it in the...
congressional record...
http://www.freerepublic.c...
me too
I would also like to see that. It strikes me as a fabrication of some neo-con grousing about sexual freedom, the decline of Christianity, and people protesting their stupid government.
Well first of all, can you
Well first of all, can you name anyone that has allodial title that the government recognises? You may refer to church properties, but even these come under control of the current sitting government.
And secondly, if we manage to replace the government with the original intented government, how should or would we divide property held by the government currently in control? If it is not redistributed with automatic entitlement to allodial title, then it will surely reinforce the argument by statists that a authoritarian government is necessary to protect individual rights collectively.
grant
I know of a couple of people
You can find the answer to those questions at Team Law's website. Check out their open forum, there is alot of information there.
http://teamlaw.org/
I know of a couple of people here in New Jersey that have accepted their land patent.
To use the law to obtain title would be great but not feasable.
I have studied allodial titles, but the only problem I see is that eventhough they are backed by the law, the government we have does not recognize them. This is probably good because since there are so few of them it would be imposible to convince the majority of people that some people have more rights than others. And we have to be careful, since to recognize only certain people's rights to vote and rights to land could be used by statists to gain even more power. So unless we can acheive allodial title to land for all people there will always be conflict. Doesn't have to be a lot of land, just enought so if people wanted to work collectively on their land, they could do so independently without interference from a state or government.
"This is probably good
"This is probably good because since there are so few of them it would be imposible to convince the majority of people that some people have more rights than others." So few of what? No one has more rights than the next. Every peice of property that is conveyed today can be tracked all the way back to the original land grant or to land made patent at the hand of the President of the United States of America. All land title today stems from land granted or made patent.
The "government" we have today does abide by land law, however, one should look at who truly acquired the land. Was it the sovereign individual or a was it the Social Security created trust through the use of the "government's" SSN or TIN...in which case, it is not the individual that owns the property, but, ultimately, the government. That name and number belongs to them and they entrust it to the individual who carries it, with the explicit instruction that if they ask for it back the trustee must return it...what would that leave the trustee with?
http://www.teamlawproduct...
Must have guarenteed rights to own or use land to have freedom.
I agree that Communism is not a good system, but mostly because of the idea that noone owns land. Of course Tolsoyan communists believe there need be no ownership of land, but at the same time they believe there is no need for a state or government. Whereas Communism as it is preached by most revolutionaries has always only really been in namesake since there continues to be a state and it tends to be totalitarian.
Something that the Constitution does not guarentee is land rights, and probably rightly so considering that period in time, since most of the population did not own land, but were either slaves or indendured servants. So to protect land rights would have kept the people in their position and have protected the existing system of land conquered by the empire and King, and which were given to his govenors or others by agreement. However more than 200 years later we have a same situation, the government of this country owns most of the land; and what they don't own, they have the right to tax or take away when desiring. Many people may protest my understanding of the situation, but the truth is, unless people can truely own land (without being taxed) or the free right to use land (without being taxed) then there is no such thing as true freedom, so our challenge is to decide how everyone can recieve land and true land rights.
grant
yes
agree
Land ownership is what allowed us our independence.
Actually, land ownership is what ultimately gave us the Constitution for the United States of America. When a king granted land to an individual in the new world, that land owner was now recognized as a Sovereign equal to the king. This is where the phrase "the Kings folly" came from. The king had no right to try and usurp the sovereign control of the land owners and they new it and acted accordingly.
Infact, only land owners were and are electors. In this Act one can read the definition of an elector: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi...
If you want to learn more about land ownership, it's importance today and it's role in our history start here:
http://teamlaw.org/land.h...
Must have guarenteed rights to own or use land to have freedom.
Property rights must be included as a basic right for everyone.
grant
What you describe is Statism.
People working together collectively isn't a problem. When a single State owns everything or has the ability to tax everything, that is the problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
I tend to side with the anarchists definition of statism. Although I don't believe in violence to eliminate the state.
grant
I bow to only one King and Judge.
The thing is.. Communism and Fascism are both Collectivist..
So in essence, when you say government control of ---- , if the CORPORATIONS are working WITH the government its fascism..
Same result as communism in essence.. a totalitarian state.
...and, if the government is
...and, if the government is a private foreign corporation it is fascism...
http://teamlaw.org/
doesn't Ron Paul refer to
doesn't Ron Paul refer to our present state as passive fascism
elements of fascism include:
*Powerful idea of nationalism
*Powerful executive control in government
*Lower human rights outlook
*Military reigns supreme
*Corporations wield great power
*Idea that National Security is at great risk to some threat
*Identifying of enemies/scapegoats that unifies citizens in Patriotism
*Mass media controlled by State and Corporations
*Fixed elections
*Rampant corruption
*Unlimited power held by police force
heres an interesting article and website(source)
http://www.fdrs.org/fasci...
This site is a good resource for teaching teenagers and young adults about debt and Patriotism at the same time. Heck it's good for any age but I have directed my teenager to it when she started talking about moving out and how she would need credit cards to establish credit. NO! Thats the last thing they need......
Totalitarianism?
I was reading about totalitarianism on wikipedia the other day and I think it looks like we are actually in totalitarianism right now. Because the government likes to control EVERYTHING.
Icing on the cake ~
~
http://www.ronpaulhive.co...
Barack Obama: Agent of “More of the Same”
Looks like
we are there!!So what are we going to do about it!
Elect Ron Paul
to the presidency and we seem to be having a really hard time of that. Hmm, could be because the elections are rigged. Oooops. Now what?