1963 Communist Agenda

[Michael Hardner]

Examples please.

I will modify my point a little here.

From Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel - the Chinese emperor had the opportunity to engage in shipbuilding and exploration but decided not to. Europe had various competing individuals and entities - and the ones who successfully engaged in the new global trade profited while others went down.

But I shouldn't have said 'good solutions' - perhaps I should have said new solutions.

Counter example that proves my updated point - the conservative Canadian banking industry was slow to jump onto the bandwagon of buying into high-risk mortgages in the mid 2000s. So there was an innovation happening there, but we were late to get on it - and that ultimately saved us.

So, I should have caught my value-laded statement of saying something was 'good' - as that kind of thing will always get you in trouble. I could have used adjectives such as "new/old" and "fast/slow"...

[sharkman]

Examples please.

What, you're another socialist/progressive?

[Jack Weber]

It is surprising how many of those Communist goals have been achieved. Some have said that Russia is no longer the threat it was and no longer communist, but they have certainly turned away from capitalism and into dictatorship like rule. How many Russian spies were sent packing this week?

The rerason for Russia turning back to Fascistic oligarchies is because there was no proper controls given when the Communist government fell....They ended up with an economic free for all and enough people turned back towards a "strong man" because of the depravity that was going on with the Russian upper classes...

The result 20 years later?

The country looks to be run by a Prime Minister,who is nothing more than a puppet front man for a KGB thug in Mr.Putin...Add in that the Russian economy is run by Oligarchs and the Russian Mafia,we have what we have there.

Russia could have been a model for getting rid of totalitarian,authoritarian regimes and replacing them properly,but because of the free marketeers and their collective greed,they went for the fast buck instead of taking the long term view of building Russian society in a more egalitarian fashion.We clearly did'nt learn anything from the Weimar Republic debacle of the '20's...

There is a day of reckoning coming for this short sightedness,I'm sure....

[Shwa]

What, you're another socialist/progressive?

You got a sense of me being a socialist/progressive from me writing "examples please" to Michael's assertion of the viability of close economic systems?

Wow. I am truly impressed with your depth. By that I mean the depth of the rabbit hole you must have fallen into. But still tis depth nonetheless Alice.

[ToadBrother]

Russia could have been a model for getting rid of totalitarian,authoritarian regimes and replacing them properly,but because of the free marketeers and their collective greed,they went for the fast buck instead of taking the long term view of building Russian society in a more egalitarian fashion.We clearly did'nt learn anything from the Weimar Republic debacle of the '20's...

While I hate to peg cultures down, we have to look at the failures of post-Soviet Russian democracy and, indeed at the failed Weimar Republic and draw the conclusion that democracy only really works in a society that is ready to properly accept it. Russian democracy during the 1990s was an utter disaster, economically, social and politically. Like the Weimar Republic in Germany, it did little or nothing to inspire genuine liberal democratic ideals. While Putin is by no means a Hitler, still, he is an effective strongman, and yet he remains incredibly popular, precisely because he gives the Russians what they've had for centuries; a paternalistic autocratic regime. Hitler gave the Germans the same thing. I don't think the parallels are perfect, but I do see some resemblances between Russia in the 1990s and Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s. In both cases a fragile economic recovery was wiped out, and in both cases the leadership (Yeltsin in Russia, Hindenburg in Germany) were weak, even physically ill figures (Hindenburg was probably well into his dotage during the rise of Hitler) who simply did not have the capacity to hold back the forces seeking to limit or eliminate democratic institutions. Witness the difference between that, and say, King Juan Carlos in Spain, who saved the fledgling post-Franco Spanish democracy by ordering the troops back to their barracks and firing the generals who tried to overthrow constitutional government.

Fledgling democracies are incredible vulnerable, in part because they can never deliver everything a restive electorate wants, and if you don't have leaders with a strong sense of their role as preservers of constitutional order, you will ultimately see democracy limited (or in Germany's case, simply wiped out completely).

The reason that democracy took off in West Germany and in Japan was because in both cases the previous rulers and regimes had been so utterly discredited by their colossal military failures. Of course, the US spent a helluva lot of coin in both countries, supporting and basically underwriting the democratic institutions until such point as they could withstand the internal forces that usually survive the fall of an autocratic regime.

[bloodyminded]

Well, the poor majority seem to be getting a little disgruntled with him lately.

No doubt, and probably with good reason.

Well, I'm glad we got that straight then. Chavez does violate human rights. Uribe probably does moreso. It seems extreme leftists have a tendency to be revolutionaries and perhaps a little more forceful action is necessary to Uribe than Chavez.

You don't know. you're assuming...assuming that the worse human rights violater probably has some "necessary" reasons...for things like killing unarmed civilians and then planting weapons on them, as the police do regularly; of "disappearing" people, torturing and kidnapping and commititng extrajudicial executions...

Yes, no doubt it's all reasonable behaviour, if we could only understand the poor leader's troubles.

Could they be subversives supporting armed guerillas, maybe?

Could it be you're assuming something without even bothering to look into it?

Edited July 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

You don't know. you're assuming...assuming that the worse human rights violater probably has some "necessary" reasons...for things like killing unarmed civilians and then planting weapons on them, as the police do regularly; of "disappearing" people, torturing and kidnapping and commititng extrajudicial executions...

Yes, no doubt it's all reasonable behaviour, if we could only understand the poor leader's troubles.

Could it be you're assuming something without even bothering to look into it?

Arguing who is the worst human rights violator is not really productive. South American politics is not very stable. It seems leftist factions are always trying to overthrow the democratically elected governments. Chavez is in power because he was democratically elected. Certainly, there is a power struggle there to keep it a democracy, which Chavez seems to be threatening. The people will elect a socialist but I don't think they bargained for how far Chavez is mired in socialist ideology.

Do you find it odd that in South America the most stable country economically right now is Chile? Why do you think that would be?

[bloodyminded]

Arguing who is the worst human rights violator is not really productive. South American politics is not very stable. It seems leftist factions are always trying to overthrow the democratically elected governments.

And the rightist factions have behaved as insufferable barbarians. The victims couldn't care less about which side of the spectrum the bullets come from.

Chavez is in power because he was democratically elected. Certainly, there is a power struggle there to keep it a democracy, which Chavez seems to be threatening.

I have made a similar point; but what i haven't elided is the unambiguous truth that his right-wing opponents are threatening to democracy as well...for example, by instigating a coup.

Do you find it odd that in South America the most stable country economically right now is Chile? Why do you think that would be?

Are you suggesting it's because Chile has not moved as far to the left?

That would be like my saying that Colombia's terrible upsets, including the worst internal refugee crisis in the region, is directly attributable only to capitalism.

You can't blame the left/socialists for everything. Isn't a conservative mantra one of "personal responsibility"? Hopefully it's not heresy to point out that this applies to the conservatives themselves.

[ToadBrother]

Arguing who is the worst human rights violator is not really productive. South American politics is not very stable. It seems leftist factions are always trying to overthrow the democratically elected governments.

For varying definitions of "elected". Let's remember here that the right wing governments were pretty bloody awful, basically there to make sure the large land holders could continue to keep the lower classes in poverty and worked effectively as slaves. Leftist movements like Castro's Communists didn't become popular by accident, they became popular because the governments of countries like Cuba were corrupt.

[ToadBrother]

You can't blame the left/socialists for everything. Isn't a conservative mantra one of "personal responsibility"? Hopefully it's not heresy to point out that this applies to the conservatives themselves.

The problem in Latin America has always been the incredibly wide gulf between the small rich elites who own most of the land and the much larger population of poor and impoverished, who, historically have been treated as well little better than Medieval serfs. There are also in many parts of the region huge racial overtones as the wealthy are for the most part European in origin, and the poor are indigenous Indian.

These sorts of vast gulfs will inevitably create tensions. People can complain about the Leftists and Communists all they want, and I agree that these groups often bring as much grief as they want to fix, but until the common people have a voice, what can anyone expect. The real problem in Latin America was that during the Cold War the US had a vested interest, particularly after Castro came to power in Cuba, in suppressing Leftists, who they feared were all being funded and backed by the Soviets (and many in fact were). Without the Cold War I suspect that political and economic development in the region would have been a lot farther ahead. Note here that I'm not condemning the US, keeping the Soviets from putting satellite and friendly governments throughout the Americas was strategically necessary, but the cost was a long-term protraction of the economic, political and social problems in the region, and an incredible (and well-placed) distrust of the United States (which is sad, because before WWII the US was very much admired in many parts of Latin America).

Chavez, of course, is a populist goon who seems to see himself as the next Simon Bolivar. He clearly is using his country's vast oil wealth to buy himself a bloc of friendly regimes. It's backfired in some places like Honduras, but all in all he's been very successful. Chavez, Morales, the whole bunch, may be wrong-headed and even anti-democratic to some extent, but they are the inevitable outcome. The best we can do now is to let them so thoroughly bungle things that they end up being driven from power. Let's also hope it isn't in the traditional Latin American mode of revolution, but through the ballot box.

[bloodyminded]

The problem in Latin America has always been the incredibly wide gulf between the small rich elites who own most of the land and the much larger population of poor and impoverished, who, historically have been treated as well little better than Medieval serfs. There are also in many parts of the region huge racial overtones as the wealthy are for the most part European in origin, and the poor are indigenous Indian.

These sorts of vast gulfs will inevitably create tensions. People can complain about the Leftists and Communists all they want, and I agree that these groups often bring as much grief as they want to fix, but until the common people have a voice, what can anyone expect. The real problem in Latin America was that during the Cold War the US had a vested interest, particularly after Castro came to power in Cuba, in suppressing Leftists, who they feared were all being funded and backed by the Soviets (and many in fact were). Without the Cold War I suspect that political and economic development in the region would have been a lot farther ahead. Note here that I'm not condemning the US, keeping the Soviets from putting satellite and friendly governments throughout the Americas was strategically necessary, but the cost was a long-term protraction of the economic, political and social problems in the region, and an incredible (and well-placed) distrust of the United States (which is sad, because before WWII the US was very much admired in many parts of Latin America).

Chavez, of course, is a populist goon who seems to see himself as the next Simon Bolivar. He clearly is using his country's vast oil wealth to buy himself a bloc of friendly regimes. It's backfired in some places like Honduras, but all in all he's been very successful. Chavez, Morales, the whole bunch, may be wrong-headed and even anti-democratic to some extent, but they are the inevitable outcome. The best we can do now is to let them so thoroughly bungle things that they end up being driven from power. Let's also hope it isn't in the traditional Latin American mode of revolution, but through the ballot box.

I agree with this. I'd only add that genuine and sincere trepidation about Soviet influence was not the sole factor behind American (and other Western/Northern) support for undemocratic regimes and butchers. Indeed, similar support can be traced back to before there was such thing as the Soviet Union; the matter was one of regional control--and, of course resources. Since "our resources so often happen to be under other people's feet, trouble brews easily.

So when the same sorts of policies and alliances continue, to blame it in totality on fears of Communism seems a stretch. Undoubtedly it was a part of it. But there is even a credible argument to madfe, at least in the case of Nicaragua, that US policies (some of them illegal) were explicitly designed to push Nicaragua into receiving aid from the Soviets...providing justification after-the-fact.

I too think Chavez is troubling, though the rhetoric applied to him is laughable, as most of our allies (including Lula, a considerable person by most folks' reckoning) has tried to point out. Even Mexico's conservative president has decried the "dictator" remarks as off-the-wall. The only regional leader who has expressed sympathy with the American view is Uribe...and his human rights record is worse...according to the State Department's own website! It's as if we're down the rabbit-hole, or at least circling its perimeter.

However, Chavez does have some clearly authoritarian tendencies, and I wouldn't be as supportive of them as we unfortunately tend to be about Uribe's remarkably brutal state. But I don't know that Morales falls into the same category as does Chavez. He is friendly with Chavez, and with Castro, but there's no way in hell we're in any position to criticize the company he keeps. (Surely we're not opposed to trucking with authoritarians!) Morales is a socialist, and has instituted some socialist reforms, which critics will say are authoritarian by definition; but I'm not convinced the matter is crystal clear. Unlike Castro (and maybe Chavez) everything Morales has instituted, to my knowledge, is precisely the things he was voted in on.

[ToadBrother]

However, Chavez does have some clearly authoritarian tendencies, and I wouldn't be as supportive of them as we unfortunately tend to be about Uribe's remarkably brutal state. But I don't know that Morales falls into the same category as does Chavez. He is friendly with Chavez, and with Castro, but there's no way in hell we're in any position to criticize the company he keeps. (Surely we're not opposed to trucking with authoritarians!) Morales is a socialist, and has instituted some socialist reforms, which critics will say are authoritarian by definition; but I'm not convinced the matter is crystal clear. Unlike Castro (and maybe Chavez) everything Morales has instituted, to my knowledge, is precisely the things he was voted in on.

I have a hard time putting guys like Chavez and Morales in the same boat with Castro. Ideologically, they are worlds apart. Yes, Chavez and Morales have nationalized some industries, but neither country functions like the autocracy that Cuba is. It's kind of like saying Edwarth Heath and Fransisco Franco were soul mates, just because both happened to run governments that fell to the right.

The friendship with Cuba, from what I can tell, is calculated, in part to please the more socialist elements of Chavez's government, and in part to create that anti-American Latin bloc he's been working towards. I see no evidence that Chavez intends on remaking Venezuela into Cuba. Certainly Chavez is prone to some autocratic leanings, but let's face it, the guy is still incredibly popular. In part it's a smoke-and-mirrors affair propped up petrodollars. At the end of the day the region is still heavily reliant on trade with the US, and while China is certainly making inroads, I find a lot of Chavez's anti-Americanism to simply be populist pandering.

Morales in particular, as you say, has pretty much done what he promised. I don't really see him as being very autocratic, I see him as being naively idealistic, and sometimes a bit of a big mouth, but he's doing what the people want. Maybe what the people want isn't always right, but in a country so long dominated by rich land owners, again, what can we expect but an electorate dominated by the poor to demand some of that land back?

[bloodyminded]

I have a hard time putting guys like Chavez and Morales in the same boat with Castro. Ideologically, they are worlds apart. Yes, Chavez and Morales have nationalized some industries, but neither country functions like the autocracy that Cuba is. It's kind of like saying Edwarth Heath and Fransisco Franco were soul mates, just because both happened to run governments that fell to the right.

The friendship with Cuba, from what I can tell, is calculated, in part to please the more socialist elements of Chavez's government, and in part to create that anti-American Latin bloc he's been working towards. I see no evidence that Chavez intends on remaking Venezuela into Cuba. Certainly Chavez is prone to some autocratic leanings, but let's face it, the guy is still incredibly popular. In part it's a smoke-and-mirrors affair propped up petrodollars. At the end of the day the region is still heavily reliant on trade with the US, and while China is certainly making inroads, I find a lot of Chavez's anti-Americanism to simply be populist pandering.

Morales in particular, as you say, has pretty much done what he promised. I don't really see him as being very autocratic, I see him as being naively idealistic, and sometimes a bit of a big mouth, but he's doing what the people want. Maybe what the people want isn't always right, but in a country so long dominated by rich land owners, again, what can we expect but an electorate dominated by the poor to demand some of that land back?

I think you've hit the nail square on the head with every point; I agree with every word you've said here.

[Pliny]

For varying definitions of "elected". Let's remember here that the right wing governments were pretty bloody awful, basically there to make sure the large land holders could continue to keep the lower classes in poverty and worked effectively as slaves. Leftist movements like Castro's Communists didn't become popular by accident, they became popular because the governments of countries like Cuba were corrupt.

True, they were corrupt. Where is the government when you need them, eh? Of course the revolution occurred because of corruption, privilege and oppression. The American Revolution occurred for the same reasons. The difference is that the American revolutionaries recognized the corruption stemmed from the government. Castro thought he could end the corruption by becoming the government and instituting socialism. It is arguable whether he eliminated them or just installed his own brand of privilege, corruption and oppression. He did have his own private hospital(privilege)and billion dollar bank account(corruption)while keeping the populace stifled in the 1950's(oppression - people weren't actually paddling from Florida to get in). Power corrupts. Castro tried honestly to get his system of socialism to work and even invited the USSR in but I think he became disenchanted with them and decided he would go it alone. I don't expect Raoul will be able to keep the foundation strong for too long. Of course Chavez along with Fidel, for the short time being will lend their advices.

[ironstone]

I wonder if Obama's buddy,Van Jones could tell us more about the Communist agenda.

[lictor616]

Yeah,but.....

There is no geopolitical epicentre for Marxism or Communism any more...

The Soviet Union is gone...It's empire is essentially gone...

The Chinese have become crypto-Fascists,not Maoist Communists...

It's a failed ideology...

A more modern version of Fascism,based on global corporatism,is a far more likely problem than a 5th column Communist assault on our democracies...

Communism is a conspiracy BY and FOR the elites.

It isn<t an ideology to begin with, but a cabal conspiracy, as is Marxism, Fabian Socilaism, Fourrierism and various cults and heresies.

They are tools to befuddle and recruit masses. They are religions, and work in much the same way as Christianity (actually the communist manifesto reads like a social gospel based on much of the same superstitions found in the bible).

Marx, who was a member of the "Ligue Des Justes" which was a branch of Adam Weishaupt's Illuminati was a big proponent of goals of "the committee of 300"

viz:

21 Goals of the Illuminati and The Committee of 300

By Dr. John Coleman.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/johncolemangoalsofIlluminati.shtml

F rom: Conspirators' Hierachy: The Story of The Committee of 300

1. To establish a One World Government/New World Order with a unified church and monetary system under their direction. The One World Government began to set up its church in the 1920:s and 30:s, for they realized the need for a religious belief inherent in mankind must have an outlet and, therefore, set up a "church" body to channel that belief in the direction they desired.

2. To bring about the utter destruction of all national identity and national pride, which was a primary consideration if the concept of a One World Government was to work.

3. To engineer and bring about the destruction of religion, and more especially, the Christian Religion, with the one exception, their own creation, as mentioned above.

4. To establish the ability to control of each and every person through means of mind control and what Zbignew Brzezinski called techonotronics, which would create human-like robots and a system of terror which would make Felix Dzerzinhski's Red Terror look like children at play.

5. To bring about the end to all industrialization and the production of nuclear generated electric power in what they call "the post-industrial zero-growth society". Excepted are the computer- and service industries. US industries that remain will be exported to countries such as Mexico where abundant slave labor is available. As we saw in 1993, this has become a fact through the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA. Unemployables in the US, in the wake of industrial destruction, will either become opium-heroin and/or cocaine addicts, or become statistics in the elimination of the "excess population" process we know of today as Global 2000.

6. To encourage, and eventually legalize the use of drugs and make pornography an "art-form", which will be widely accepted and, eventually, become quite commonplace.

7. To bring about depopulation of large cities according to the trial run carried out by the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. It is interesting to note that Pol Pot's genocidal plans were drawn up in the US by one of the Club of Rome's research foundations, and overseen by Thomas Enders, a high-ranking State Department official. It is also interesting that the committee is currently seeking to reinstate the Pol Pot butchers in Cambodia.

8. To suppress all scientific development except for those deemed beneficial by the Illuminati. Especially targeted is nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Particularly hated are the fusion experiments currently being scorned and ridiculed by the Illuminati and its jackals of the press. Development of the fusion torch would blow the Illuminati's conception of "limited natural resources" right out of the window. A fusion torch, properly used, could create unlimited and as yet untapped natural resources, even from the most ordinary substances. Fusion torch uses are legion, and would benefit mankind in a manner which, as yet, is not even remotely comprehended by the public.

9. To cause. by means of limited wars in the advanced countries, by means of starvation and diseases in the Third World countries, the death of three billion people by the year 2050, people they call "useless eaters". The Committee of 300 (Illuminati) commissioned Cyrus Vance to write a paper on this subject of how to bring about such genocide. The paper was produced under the title "Global 2000 Report" and was accepted and approved for action by former President James Earl Carter, and Edwin Muskie, then Secretary of States, for and on behalf of the US Government. Under the terms of the Global 2000 Report, the population of the US is to be reduced by 100 million by the year of 2050.

10. To weaken the moral fiber of the nation and to demoralize workers in the labor class by creating mass unemployment. As jobs dwindle due to the post industrial zero growth policies introduced by the Club of Rome, the report envisages demoralized and discouraged workers resorting to alcohol and drugs. The youth of the land will be encouraged by means of rock music and drugs to rebel against the status quo, thus undermining and eventually destroying the family unit. In this regard, the Committee commissioned Tavistock Institute to prepare a blueprint as to how this could be achieved. Tavistock directed Stanford Research to undertake the work under the direction of Professor Willis Harmon. This work later became known as the "Aquarian Conspiracy".

11. To keep people everywhere from deciding their own destinies by means of one created crisis after another and then "managing" such crises. This will confuse and demoralize the population to the extent where faced with too many choices, apathy on a massive scale will result. In the case of the US, an agency for Crisis Management is already in place. It is called the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), whose existence I first enclosed in 1980.

12. To introduce new cults and continue to boost those already functioning which include rock music gangsters such as the Rolling Stones (a gangster group much favored by European Black Nobility), and all of the Tavistock-created rock groups which began with the Beatles.

13. To continue to build up the cult of Christian Fundamentalism begun by the British East India Company's servant Darby, which will be misused to strengthen the Zionist State of Israel by identifying with the Jews through the myth of "God's chosen people", and by donating very substantial amounts of money to what they mistakenly believe is a religious cause in the furtherance of Christianity.

14. To press for the spread of religious cults such as the Moslem Brotherhood, Moslem Fundamentalism, the Sikhs, and to carry out mind control experiments of the Jim Jones and "Son of Sam" type. It is worth noting that the late Khomeini was a creation of British Military Intelligence Div. 6, MI6. This detailed work spelled out the step-by-step process which the US Government implemented to put Khomeini in power.

15. To export "religious liberation" ideas around the world so as to undermine all existing religions, but more especially the Christian religion. This began with the "Jesuit Liberation Theology", that brought an end to the Somoza Family rule in Nicaragua, and which today is destroying El Salvador, now 25 years into a "civil war". Costa Rica and Honduras are also embroiled in revolutionary activities, instigated by the Jesuits. One very active entity engaged in the so-called liberation theology, is the Communist-oriented Mary Knoll Mission. This accounts for the extensive media attention to the murder of four of Mary Knoll's so-called nuns in El Salvador a few years ago. The four nuns were Communist subversive agents and their activities were widely documented by the Government of El Salvador. The US press and the new media refused to give any space or coverage to the mass of documentation possessed by the Salvadorian Government, which proved what the Mary Knoll Mission nuns were doing in the country. Mary Knoll is in service in many countries, and placed a leading role in bringing Communism to Rhodesia, Moçambique, Angola and South Africa.

16. To cause a total collapse of the world's economies and engender total political chaos.

17. To take control of all foreign and domestic policies of the US.

18. To give the fullest support to supranational institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank of International Settlements, the World Court and, as far as possible, make local institutions less effective, by gradually phasing them out or bringing them under the mantle of the UN.

19. To penetrate and subvert all governments, and work from within them to destroy the sovereign integrity of the nations represented by them.

20. To organize a world-wide terrorist apparatus and to negotiate with terrorists whenever terrorist activities take place. It will be recalled that it was Bettino Craxi, who persuaded the Italian and US Governments to negotiate with the Red Brigades kidnapers of Prime Minister Moro and General Dozier. As an aside, Dozier was placed under strict orders not to talk what happened to him. Should he ever break that silence, he will no doubt be made "a horrible example of", in the manner in which Henry Kissinger dealt with Aldo Moro, Ali Bhutto and General Zia ul Haq.

21. To take control of education in America with the intent and purpose of utterly and completely destroying it. By 1993, the full force effect of this policy is becoming apparent, and will be even more destructive as primary and secondary schools begin to teach "Outcome Based Education" (OBE).

It is instructive to read the published files of the Bavarian "Perfektytibilisten", it actually reads like a prophecy...

[bloodyminded]

Communism is a conspiracy BY and FOR the elites.

No. It certainly has become a ruling cnspiracy by those who attain power. But this is an indictment of Power, not of communism per se.

You have made several points here, but I'll just address acouple of them:

9. To cause. by means of limited wars in the advanced countries, by means of starvation and diseases in the Third World countries, the death of three billion people by the year 2050, people they call "useless eaters". The Committee of 300 (Illuminati) commissioned Cyrus Vance to write a paper on this subject of how to bring about such genocide. The paper was produced under the title "Global 2000 Report" and was accepted and approved for action by former President James Earl Carter, and Edwin Muskie, then Secretary of States, for and on behalf of the US Government. Under the terms of the Global 2000 Report, the population of the US is to be reduced by 100 million by the year of 2050.

OK, these are declarative statements about intent, rather than opinons about effect; so we have a right to ask if they're true.

Can you provide us with a credible link displaying Carter's and Muskie's acceptance and approval of global genocide and the reduction of the American population by more than two-thirds of its current levels?

Are the relevant papers declassified and available? And if not...how do you know these facts?

11. To keep people everywhere from deciding their own destinies by means of one created crisis after another and then "managing" such crises. This will confuse and demoralize the population to the extent where faced with too many choices, apathy on a massive scale will result.

There could be some truth to this in terms of the complicated effects of intertwined domestic and foreign policy.

But again, there is no great overarching, intentional plan to bring just this about.

And of course, it is an effect of consumer capitalism, not some communist conspiracy. Take responsibility for the negative effects of your favoured ideology, lictor! The Communist regimes were bad, but they're not responsible for all the world's ills.

12. To introduce new cults and continue to boost those already functioning which include rock music gangsters such as the Rolling Stones (a gangster group much favored by European Black Nobility), and all of the Tavistock-created rock groups which began with the Beatles.

The Rolling Stones! Yes, those rebel rock gangsters, the Rolling Stones, are having a pernicious effect on our youth....the eleven of them that still listen to the Rolling Stones.

I think your sources might be a bit...well...dated.

13. To continue to build up the cult of Christian Fundamentalism begun by the British East India Company's servant Darby, which will be misused to strengthen the Zionist State of Israel by identifying with the Jews through the myth of "God's chosen people", and by donating very substantial amounts of money to what they mistakenly believe is a religious cause in the furtherance of Christianity.

Yes, there are conservative, capitalist Christians who are enthusiastic about Israel for there own "end times" purposes. They're not Communists, Lictor...surely you know that! They're conservative capitalists through and through.

Also, I believe they dislike the Jews very much, as their theology demands that all unconverted Jews will suffer eternally, & co & co.

15. To export "religious liberation" ideas around the world so as to undermine all existing religions, but more especially the Christian religion. This began with the "Jesuit Liberation Theology", that brought an end to the Somoza Family rule in Nicaragua, and which today is destroying El Salvador, now 25 years into a "civil war". Costa Rica and Honduras are also embroiled in revolutionary activities, instigated by the Jesuits. One very active entity engaged in the so-called liberation theology, is the Communist-oriented Mary Knoll Mission. This accounts for the extensive media attention to the murder of four of Mary Knoll's so-called nuns in El Salvador a few years ago. The four nuns were Communist subversive agents and their activities were widely documented by the Government of El Salvador. The US press and the new media refused to give any space or coverage to the mass of documentation possessed by the Salvadorian Government, which proved what the Mary Knoll Mission nuns were doing in the country. Mary Knoll is in service in many countries, and placed a leading role in bringing Communism to Rhodesia, Moçambique, Angola and South Africa.

Liberation Theology, a more humanist component of Catholic doctrine (though rejected by the Vatican, who preferred rich and powerful right-wingers to poor and dispossessed peasants), was nothing more than the idea of favouring the poor majority.

The El Salvadoran government, who were a particularly brutal and murderous band of killers, were in close alliance with the West, particularly the US.

And those nuns were raped first, and then murdered. All in the name of Good Government, eh? Rape against Communism?

[Pliny]

There really is no conspiracy. It only appears so because the government knows what's best for everybody.

The more they are convinced of this the more it looks like a conspiracy.

[bloodyminded]

There really is no conspiracy. It only appears so because the government knows what's best for everybody.

The more they are convinced of this the more it looks like a conspiracy.

Yes, much of what might appear at first glance to be conspiracy is actually nothing more mysterious than the predictable institutionalization of the behaviours of powerful people. Also, much of the information is public, not secret, even if it is not broadcast as part of a regular news cycle.

[lictor616]

And of course, it is an effect of consumer capitalism, not some communist conspiracy. Take responsibility for the negative effects of your favoured ideology, lictor! The Communist regimes were bad, but they're not responsible for all the world's ills.

Yes, there are conservative, capitalist Christians who are enthusiastic about Israel for there own "end times" purposes. They're not Communists, Lictor...surely you know that! They're conservative capitalists through and through.

Also, I believe they dislike the Jews very much, as their theology demands that all unconverted Jews will suffer eternally, & co & co.

Communism destroyed 119 million lives, by far the worst democides and genocides were committed by Communist governments.

The Communist regimes were atrocious and we owe most of our problems today to them, nearly every scheme that has as an effect to injure the American or Canadian or European people have been devised by left wing socialist and crypto-communists... anyways

And Communism is a racifimento of Christianity, Marxism is in fact Christianity divested of belief in supernatural beings, but retaining many of Christianity's social superstitions. "Equality of man"? "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth"? Of course socialists and communists claim to give deference to science over faith, a weapon they use against competing cults (such as Mormons, Christians etc). Marx used what was called the "religious residue" in people after Europeans were beginning to doubt their creeds. The "religious residue", Marx thought: is the vacuum that is created when a nation abandons its religion, and it years desperetaly for something to fill that void.... Marx wanted communism to be the new religion, but was wise enough to incorporate many christian concepts into his bible: "the Communist Manifesto"...

Even most socialists (like the ones who were protesting the G20 recently)today are indistinguishable in character and intelligence from the Christian imbeciles who shout obscenities in front of abortion clinics. Because they argue out of a catechism, a faith, not reason. To claim that communism is an ideology, is incorrect, it really is a religion, it is based in fictive nonsense and requires people to BELIEVE not think.

The Communist manifesto isn't even considerable as an economic theory, it's as if it has no contact with any economic reality at any time. It is unsophisticated and an obvious

Socialists and Communists claim to impart scientific knowledge, but the hypocrisy of the professed devotion to scientific knowledge is unambiguous when the ‘Socialists and Communists’ began their frantic and often hysterical efforts to suppress scientific knowledge about genetics and the obviously innate differences between the different human races and between the individuals of any given race. At present, the ‘Lefties‘ are limited to shrieking and spitting when they are confronted with inconvenient facts, but no one who has heard them in action can have failed to notice how exasperated they are by the limitations that have thus far prevented them from burning wicked biologists and other rational men at the stake.

Evangelicals do not dislike jews at all... http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_evangelicals.html

No less a public figure and top religious hooch salesman PAt Robertson is a staunch supporter of Israel and acknowledges the Jews choseness by god. The liberal media often tries to portray Evnagelicals as anti-semites... but most denominations are PRO-ISRAEL, in fact the term judeo-christian values was probably coined by them, anyone who's seen the shocking movie Jesus camp saw countless Israeli flags help in prayer throughout the movie. Its long been like this,

for instance :

*The Jewish Press*, 14 June 1985, p. 44, that some citizens of San Angelo, Texas, full of Christian luff for God's People, selected twenty-seven choice sheep and shipped them, at "enormous cost," by chartered airplane as a gift to a small agricultural commune, or KIBBUTZ, south of Jerusalem. San Angelo is a town of perhaps 80,000 in west central Texas, about 150 miles north of the Rio Grande. Six Christian holy men whooped it up for the great airlift, and funds were collected from local GOYIM.

[bloodyminded]

The Communist regimes were atrocious

Obviously.

and we owe most of our problems today to them

Laughable nonsense.

Pre-1917 we lived in paradise, perhaps?

nearly every scheme that has as an effect to injure the American or Canadian or European people have been devised by left wing socialist and crypto-communists... anyways

Wild and baseless claims.

Evangelicals do not dislike jews at all... http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_evangelicals.html

No less a public figure and top religious hooch salesman PAt Robertson is a staunch supporter of Israel and acknowledges the Jews choseness by god.

Of course he's a staunch supporter of Israel.

End-times "theologians" are always staunch supporters of Israel, and despise the Palestinians ("Philistines"), because they believe in a certain interpretaiton of Scripture.

In this interpretation, the Jews will go to hell and suffer eternally, because they don't believe in Christ.

That's some crazy, mad love for the Jewish people, alright.

The liberal media often tries to portray Evnagelicals as anti-semites

Really? Where? you state this as knowledge, so obviously you've got plenty of citations. I respectfully ask to see them, if you don't mind.

... but most denominations are PRO-ISRAEL, in fact the term judeo-christian values was probably coined by them, anyone who's seen the shocking movie Jesus camp saw countless Israeli flags help in prayer throughout the movie. Its long been like this

Exactly. Religious fanatics fantasizing joyfully about the wanton destruction and suffering of the majority of humanity. Including the Jews. Perhaps they aren't so much anti-semites as misanthropes generally.

Edited July 10, 2010 by bloodyminded

[lictor616]

Exactly. Religious fanatics fantasizing joyfully about the wanton destruction and suffering of the majority of humanity. Including the Jews. Perhaps they aren't so much anti-semites as misanthropes generally.

That doesn't change the fact that they support a great deal of what Jews and Israel as a tribe are doing. Nevermind what they think will happen to them AFTER they die... To call these people anti-jewish when they are for all practical purposes SIDE BY SIDE and in ideological lockstep is the height of idiocy.

Personally I have no respect for any of them.

[Pliny]

And the rightist factions have behaved as insufferable barbarians. The victims couldn't care less about which side of the spectrum the bullets come from.

You mean the Fascists? Socialists all!!

I have made a similar point; but what i haven't elided is the unambiguous truth that his right-wing opponents are threatening to democracy as well...for example, by instigating a coup.

Let me get this straight:

One, Chavez gets elected. Two, Starts to nationalize corporations. Shuts down opposing media. Allies himself with Castro and Ahmadinejhad. Is on the verge of declaring himself lifetime dictator of Venezuela. And those who oppose him and may even instigate a coup are threatening democracy??? If a coup is occurring then power is not in the hands of the people but centralized ready for the picking.

I do believe that perhaps Venezuela needed a little less oppression and a little more opportunity for it's people and Chavez has certainly brought change but it is merely a change of who will oppress opportunity.

Are you suggesting it's because Chile has not moved as far to the left?

I am saying the people of Chile have some sense of respect for free market principles which demand political stability for any kind of success and continually overthrowing governments is a waste of time. Governments need to govern less. Power needs to be left in the hands of the people not concentrated in the hands of a central authority ready to be usurped by tinpot dictators or revolutionaries of any political stripe.

That would be like my saying that Colombia's terrible upsets, including the worst internal refugee crisis in the region, is directly attributable only to capitalism.

Yeah. Competition in the drug trade - isn't capitalism great.

You can't blame the left/socialists for everything. Isn't a conservative mantra one of "personal responsibility"?

Not necessarily. Only if small, limited government is a part of the Conservative's concept of conservatism.

Hopefully it's not heresy to point out that this applies to the conservatives themselves.

Hopefully.