The need for the argument-ers to engage with opposing ones, not caricatures… straw men. This – whatever-else – truth-finding ways. The Bible “so-cruel a God, so how could you..?” I'd ask; given a plausible explanation, would this make any difference in being prepared, to 'consider Christ?' Often supposed; 'believers' have some prejudiced need to press on with their “fictitious fables” – but, same can be said, for exactly the converse non-believe-in… ('press-on' I mean).
My concern, is with those who can't handle the kitchen, without blowing sockets and storming about in a fit. The answer isn't, we shouldn't be passionate, angry or hostile? We should. We just don't win by turning over, say... the chess board. The truth is, what it is. (Unless relativism reigns). Therefore, those who want to walk about a bit with opposition, will more likely find – what..? And not – what necessarily, want. Those, so-set or not-so, into engaging…otherwise why bother, only to get y'Bible/or not-Bible, bash verses-out, rocks off?
Am I open to the claims either way – are others? The idea people like myself, simply close our eyes to what appears to conflict with the Biblical portrayal, God 'is' good, no compromise – ain't occurring. Least not-always. Or..? We're pretending? When surely, genuinely seen is something else, leaving someone utterly unconvinced by claimed 'Bible contradictions'. Although personally, I've way more of an issue with some of the 'explanations' than 'outside' detractors hitting the hate.
The question, why believe as do? Why? Obviously don't believe in the monster-vision, with more than enough theological reason. Admire those who're genuinely prepared to ask and ask some more... “How and why do you..?”
As for Socialism? Those awake have two challenges, (seems to me); Marxism in history and co-opting of benevolent dreams by the NWO. Read a comment on Truthdig that brilliantly argued for more local or regional based collectivism but slammed dear Chris Hedges pleas. Nearest I'd somewhat go with. As for go-Global? Like Anarchy, Socialism is a world-wide ideal. Never really meant for less. Like A – rests on, 'lesser than now, suffering'. And the continuing states, not only getting worse but collapse, so – what next to prepare? Masses uprising with a social theory that could bring some/more-universal relief? I get the no-hope otherwise, in the richest impoverishing the masses, in what critics of libertarian-aspirations claim. But… “come the rev...” what first? Can we hold (together) and support (one another) for the truther enlightenment regardless? Roots. Radicals.
Best recent, two-sides ding-dong – yet together. Shocked and relieved to hear: FREE SPEECH - Gavin McInnes and Jeffrey Lewis ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTtroLDnh9U&feature=youtu.be )
Not everyone wants socialism, but I reckon most people would be up for various degrees of it if the rightwing propaganda could be neutralised. The One Percent have spent 100's of $trillions on their propaganda, and communism was a totalitarian disaster, but most socialists are liberals and are therefore naturally very anti-authoritarian.
It's because we want maximum freedom that we are attracted to democratic socialism. We don't want big bosses having too much control over us, and so we want a social security so we can stick our fingers up the factory owners and walk out if we wish. And we don't want big horrendous medical bills from private companies, where we are willing to pay anything, and do anything, to stay alive.
And we don't want to be ripped off by pension companies who cheat is out of our pensions, where the captains of industry would like to keep us working as virtual slaves for as long as possible.
Yes, democratic socialism means much more freedom, but pure free markets leads to virtually slavery, and very long hours, as companies scour the world for the cheapest labour costs and pit worker against worker.
Democratic socialism means less stress, more abundance, more wealth, better health, happier children, and a more effective private sector because people have more money to spend, etc.
And better wages means we can afford to buy more, and this is good for the smaller businesses because they have more customers. And this means more rich people, but with a smaller less mega rich aristocracy.
Cut out the rightwing propaganda and socialism will win hands down. But the One Percent will do anything to do so it catching on:
Infiltrate unions and get them to do stupid things so unions get a bad name.
Infiltrate leftwing parties and get them to put stupid policies forward.
Misrepresent the left in the press.
Force people on strike to retaliate against police brutality, and then film the anger and put it on TV.
In other countries the CIA, who work for the One Percent, have paid mercenaries to murder and riot in the streets to get the socialists blamed for it, etc.
The dirty war against ordinary people has been horrendous, and millions around the world have lost their lives, or have had their lives wrecked.
Modern Money Theory MMT shows that we can have good quality public services with very low tax. In fact, tax is just to stop inflation. In other words, the government taxes so the value of your money and for savings stay the same.
There would be no VAT or income tax in a MMT world, just a tax on land and capital gains. That is, a tax on unearned income only. No wonder the One Percent are so scared of the public banking solution, a vital part of MMT. No wonder the One Percent are so afraid of non totalitarian democratic socialism.
"GIVE US YOUR OPINIONS!" Ok: here is my opinion: All these three videos claim, that the only alternative to "capitalism" (in fact they mean "liberalism" - but they don't even realize that!) is "socialism". Main argument of Richard Wolff is, that "socialism" goes back to the word "society". So "socialism" Wolff claims cares about society and its people. And thus it is the only alternative to the system of those egoistic "capitalists" who exploit our society.
And while Wolff's evaluation of "capitalists" is right of course, his evaluation of "socialism" is all wrong: Karl Marx didn't want to care for the citizens of a state. He wanted "class fight" and wanted only "workers" to be considered valuable and rightful citizens of his utopian state. All 'the others' were to be destroyed - or at least "re-educated" at best. So all farmers - also the despaired small ones - all little store owners, all those e. g. who made a living from their little haircutter saloon or pub and so on were "reactionaries" in Marx' view.
But not only that: Karl Marx refused to consider real "workers" those who didn't' t work in the industrial production. In other words: The majority of those who worked for wages in Karl Marx' time, were by Marx not(!) considered to be genuine progressive "workers" of the class fighting "working class". But also in Karl Marx' time those, who had to work for wages worked in the 'service sector' - not in the 'production sector'. Every family of the (bourgeois) middle-class, who were not exactly poor, had a lot of employees: In this time, when the vacuum cleaner, the washing machine the dish washer were not yet invented, these families had one or two kitchen maiden and one or two house maiden. If these middle-class families had a garden (more likely if they lived on the county side), they had a gardener. As we have a car today, in those days middle class families had one or two horses and a (inexpensive) carriage. On the country side the stable was of course next to the house - also a modest meadow. In the city horses and carriage were placed outside a town or on the periphery of a big city. And of course there were one or even two stable boys: To feed the horses, buy and transport fodder to them, cure the horses in case of illness and so on.
Karl Marx contemplates that as the industrial workers produce the products they must also be the economic owners of the products - and not the owner of the factory. But Marx feels no intent to think for the house maiden and stable boys. How were they to be allowed to participate economically? Marx doesn't tell us - because he doesn't care about them. But even in respect of the industrial-productive workers Marx doesn't even think about those workers, whose job it is not to produce, but to single out defect products before they can leave the factory. They destroy - and don't produce! And now they have no right to also become co-owner of the products, Karl?! Really??!! Nowadays I would think of a factory that produces cell phones. Not only are there workers who take part in the producing process. There are also a lot of workers, who test out the products and destroy(!) those which have malfunctions. How can these workers participate on the profit of the production? Karl Marx gives us no answer, because he didn't think even to this point.
A side-aspect: Marx also didn't think about automation, and didn't raise the question of who should own the profit of automation (e. g. producing robots). When Goethe (this was probably in the 1820ies) saw his first power loom he was concerned and said: "I see hands without work!". But the much later born Marx didn't even think to this point. This to You, Karl: "See, Karl, nowadays very often only robots in the factory! So no exploitation of workers! What a happy future! So clap your hands and dance, Karl!
Marxism isn't "social"! It only wants a small portion of worker to rule, while all the other citizens are considered "reactionaries", who have to be repossessed, killed and/or re-educated until the have the mind of "industrial production workers". Socialism is not "social", but only totally "a-social"!
In the third video the journalist John Nichols says something very true (although he himself fails to understand it fully himself). At 18:10 Nichols says: "OUR DISCOURSE HAS BECOME VERY, VERY NARROW. VERY DEFINED BY WEATHY AND POWERFUL FOLKS!". Yes, indeed, Mr. Nichols: And this is why these "folks" don't stop to hammer it into our heads: That the only alternative to the a-social Liberalism/Capitalism was the also a-social Socialism/Communism. And exactly this is it that puts our societies to a stall or sick still stand!
But of course there is an alternative - and a really social and fair one! This alternative is the "modern Mercantilism". And only a few decades ago it still existed. One of the best examples is Sweden in the 1950ies to the end of the 1980ies. Also then Denmark and Norway were good examples. Also Germany of the 1950ies and 1960ies was mercantilist - and very successful: This as well as economically as also in respect to its social accomplishments.
The Holy Bible is a mix of previous texts. The G-d that wants their chosen ones to 'utter destroy' everyone and everything is a different God from the one that helps Noah (the Sumeric Ziusudra). By reading the Gnostic Bible the difference between the Two (2) Gods is clear, they are Enlil (YHWH) and Enki, who was represented as a serpent in posterious propaganda. The serpent in the Garden of Eden is (again) a crappy representation of sumerian chronicles. Enki enabled the Adamu to procreate and gave him self-consciousness; something that Enlil disagreed about.
Socialism is unterstood in Europe differently from the USA and even more differently in Russia (where they tasted it). Same goes with Anarchy, originally a political philosophy than has been vulgarized (See: Punk movement).
Ok. Keep it in context guys. LOVED that Context video lol.
Democratic Socialism. Why does it matter now since the only candidate endorsing it has thrown his voting power to the wolves. The soft sell was America's last chance and obviously she didn't want it enough even though I've noticed an overwhelming amount of support from people who realized early on it was our best and only real choice. Sanders endorsement of Hitlery is the real Bern.
Tho it is a compromised site, manipulating the potentially explosive US military veterans - its editors admitting 30% of what is on the site is false -
Some highly radical truth is found on Veterans Today, especially in occasional truth bursts by site principal Gordon Duff
Duff just wrote of how Britain is a result of its elites having sent off the noblest & bravest of the population to be killed in last century's wars -
"Colonial wars were, at least in the 19th century, considered a normal outlet for dealing with Europe’s 'overpopulation'. You either sent 'surplus population' overseas, exiled them to places like Australia or other penal colonies, or killed them off in wars, marching tens of thousands a day into waiting machineguns as was done at the Somme in 1915.
"The Britain we see today was made at the Somme and fields like it, where an unwanted generation was purposefully butchered. You see, Britain had no need for 'the best and brightest', the 'elites' who profit from slavery, human and narcotics trafficking, from controlling mineral wealth or staging theatrical wars knew that generations of 'the capable' would be a threat. War after war kept the British people slavish and subservient, produced leaders like Blair and Cameron."
And re the total successful manipulation of USA people -
"Even the most simplistic research will quickly yield, that the 'elites' quickly hijack every movement, every citizens revolt, using social media, paid actors, seeding black propaganda, turning anything positive, anything good or clean into 'more of the same', two-bit color revolutions and 'aggressive war on the cheap' fought by deluded fools and $300 a month mercenaries.
"All civil demonstrations in America ... are orchestrated by 'elites' and stacked with FBI informants and agent provocateurs. Everyone else is either complacent, bought off or afraid. This is what we have become, and our minders have nothing but contempt for us."
And on the world -
"Today’s world, with the Soviet Union gone, is far worse than it had been with them around. Could a case be made for Soviet Russia and Communism as a bulwark against 'the elites', all that stood then against slavery for mankind and the armies of bankers, just as Marx and Lenin had warned?" - Gordon Duff, Veterans Today
They even controlled the financial editor of the British communist Morning Star newspaper. They must have bribed him, or got incriminating evidence against him at one of their parties.
Er..;so who really owns all of the worlds "privately owned" Central banks.?. Oh,& in case you were misinformed,Communism was a Jewish invention. Jews have ALWAYS thought & worked COLLECTIVELY
The (((Rothschild Family Group))). Who sometimes revert to using their German Jewish name, (((Bauer)). A tight, in-group is (((the tribe))). This (((tribe))) also owns the (((Federal Reserve Bank of America))). According to their instruction book, the 'Talmud' + commentaries and codicil, Gemara and Mishna, together called Takanot, there are only Jews who will inherit the earth, and Goyim, [animals], who will be slaves for ever; especially White, European Christians. Jesus the Christ warned the Hebrew peasants, "Do not do their Takanot!" (((Communism))) and (((Capitalism))) are the (((tribes))) way of always controlling both sides of the game = can't lose. Cunning as serpents. * Caroll Quigley, was the historian of the Elite 1%. He wrote a long book about these (((Banksters))): "Tragedy and Hope; A history of the world". A well produced audio reading: search = 'audiobooksfree - YouTube' type = Tragedy and Hope scroll = T and H audio book by John Lothe * A book about Capitalist abuse of the working poor. 'The Jungle", by Upton Sinclair A good audio production: https://librivox.org/the-jungle-by-upton-sinclair/
For the Bank of England, there's a BOE Nominees valued 2 pound sterling, that lists two names. These known men "act for trusts that won't appear with thier names on public". Freedom of Informantion requests have been done, asking: Have any exceptions under Companies Acts and related legislation been granted to Bank of England Nominees Ltd and if so, who has granted them and why?
No answers.
The only authority above Companies Acts is well known... The Bank was originally constructed above the ancient Temple of Mithras, London at Walbrook, dating to the founding of Londinium in antiquity by Roman garrisons. Mithras was, among other things, considered the god of contracts, a fitting association for the Bank.
asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has granted any exemptions under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.
As a youngster I kind of believed in God and I would sometimes pray if I really wanted something: 'oh please God I love Tracy, so help us out a bit tomorrow when I ask her out'. Or, in the waiting room of a large company, ' oh please God, I really want this job, please help us with this one'.
I only ever prayed when it was something really important, so it was only for very special occasions.
When I was thirty I split up with my girlfriend and was very sad, but a lovely woman in the street came to to me and gave me a leaflet for her church. There was a load of people there from her church handing out leaflets and all the women looked gorgeous.
The following Sunday I went along to their church and they were really friendly and the women were great too. So I went back again every week. It was an evangelical church with lots of young people there. But at church many of them started talking in tongues which sounded very devilish and spooky. And when I found out how fundamentalist they were I started having misgivings.
After reading some of the New Testament I started looking at the Old Testament and it turned my guts inside out. I soon lost any faith I had in God after that and I became an atheist never went to church again.
But a few years back when I really wanted a house that I had put a bid in for, I whispered on the bus on the way home, 'oh please God, I really want that house, please help me get it', even though I was an atheist.
There seems to be a natural part of the soul, the other, a part that transcends you, a part that seem more powerful and infinite. Carl Jung said it was the Collective Unconscious, a mystical part that connects not only all people together throughout time and history, but it also connects us to infinity before there was even time and space. And all living creatures connect to the Collective Unconscious as well.
In regards to socialism, I happened across a brief description of a commune which was basically 100% socialist in a book I am reading yesterday and I thought I'd share. They were a group called the harmonists, based in western PA (also known as the Economite's). I think socialism in this sense works. They became a prosperous group, by investing the money they made as a group wisely, which then led to much more time for leisure (as we should live).
In regards to the bible, we need to remember who wrote it. Not only humans, but the time from which it was put together. God was around long before the bible was written, God, or that energy which was and is and will always be, is exactly that -energy. Do I think the bible is an important read, yes. How can you figure out this life without reading it. But I also think people should read the Quran and the Talmud (if they can get their hands on it).
As far as the link, with the quotes from the bible, such as killing a preacher's daughter if she is a whore (or something to that effect), I think the point is, if a father does his job, odds are, the daughter wouldn't be a whore. I feel that the true core at such messages is personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is something the majority of humans have trouble doing. But what's the key within the bible? Forgiveness. Forgiveness of ourselves (as God is always there to forgive and has done so before we even begin to realize we need to forgive ourselves). The problem is, how can we forgive ourselves if few of us see our own role (aka personal responsibility)?
I realize I probably haven't conveyed what I wanted as I should have. Nevertheless, I'm sharing. Have a blessed day everyone!
The need for the argument-ers to engage with opposing ones, not caricatures… straw men. This – whatever-else – truth-finding ways. The Bible “so-cruel a God, so how could you..?” I'd ask; given a plausible explanation, would this make any difference in being prepared, to 'consider Christ?' Often supposed; 'believers' have some prejudiced need to press on with their “fictitious fables” – but, same can be said, for exactly the converse non-believe-in… ('press-on' I mean).
ReplyDeleteMy concern, is with those who can't handle the kitchen, without blowing sockets and storming about in a fit. The answer isn't, we shouldn't be passionate, angry or hostile? We should. We just don't win by turning over, say... the chess board. The truth is, what it is. (Unless relativism reigns). Therefore, those who want to walk about a bit with opposition, will more likely find – what..? And not – what necessarily, want. Those, so-set or not-so, into engaging…otherwise why bother, only to get y'Bible/or not-Bible, bash verses-out, rocks off?
Am I open to the claims either way – are others? The idea people like myself, simply close our eyes to what appears to conflict with the Biblical portrayal, God 'is' good, no compromise – ain't occurring. Least not-always. Or..? We're pretending? When surely, genuinely seen is something else, leaving someone utterly unconvinced by claimed 'Bible contradictions'. Although personally, I've way more of an issue with some of the 'explanations' than 'outside' detractors hitting the hate.
The question, why believe as do? Why? Obviously don't believe in the monster-vision, with more than enough theological reason. Admire those who're genuinely prepared to ask and ask some more... “How and why do you..?”
As for Socialism? Those awake have two challenges, (seems to me); Marxism in history and co-opting of benevolent dreams by the NWO. Read a comment on Truthdig that brilliantly argued for more local or regional based collectivism but slammed dear Chris Hedges pleas. Nearest I'd somewhat go with. As for go-Global? Like Anarchy, Socialism is a world-wide ideal. Never really meant for less. Like A – rests on, 'lesser than now, suffering'. And the continuing states, not only getting worse but collapse, so – what next to prepare? Masses uprising with a social theory that could bring some/more-universal relief? I get the no-hope otherwise, in the richest impoverishing the masses, in what critics of libertarian-aspirations claim. But… “come the rev...” what first? Can we hold (together) and support (one another) for the truther enlightenment regardless? Roots. Radicals.
Best recent, two-sides ding-dong – yet together. Shocked and relieved to hear: FREE SPEECH - Gavin McInnes and Jeffrey Lewis ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTtroLDnh9U&feature=youtu.be )
Opinion? Thanks for asking.
Not everyone wants socialism, but I reckon most people would be up for various degrees of it if the rightwing propaganda could be neutralised. The One Percent have spent 100's of $trillions on their propaganda, and communism was a totalitarian disaster, but most socialists are liberals and are therefore naturally very anti-authoritarian.
DeleteIt's because we want maximum freedom that we are attracted to democratic socialism. We don't want big bosses having too much control over us, and so we want a social security so we can stick our fingers up the factory owners and walk out if we wish. And we don't want big horrendous medical bills from private companies, where we are willing to pay anything, and do anything, to stay alive.
And we don't want to be ripped off by pension companies who cheat is out of our pensions, where the captains of industry would like to keep us working as virtual slaves for as long as possible.
Yes, democratic socialism means much more freedom, but pure free markets leads to virtually slavery, and very long hours, as companies scour the world for the cheapest labour costs and pit worker against worker.
Democratic socialism means less stress, more abundance, more wealth, better health, happier children, and a more effective private sector because people have more money to spend, etc.
And better wages means we can afford to buy more, and this is good for the smaller businesses because they have more customers. And this means more rich people, but with a smaller less mega rich aristocracy.
Cut out the rightwing propaganda and socialism will win hands down. But the One Percent will do anything to do so it catching on:
Infiltrate unions and get them to do stupid things so unions get a bad name.
Infiltrate leftwing parties and get them to put stupid policies forward.
Misrepresent the left in the press.
Force people on strike to retaliate against police brutality, and then film the anger and put it on TV.
In other countries the CIA, who work for the One Percent, have paid mercenaries to murder and riot in the streets to get the socialists blamed for it, etc.
The dirty war against ordinary people has been horrendous, and millions around the world have lost their lives, or have had their lives wrecked.
Modern Money Theory MMT shows that we can have good quality public services with very low tax. In fact, tax is just to stop inflation. In other words, the government taxes so the value of your money and for savings stay the same.
There would be no VAT or income tax in a MMT world, just a tax on land and capital gains. That is, a tax on unearned income only. No wonder the One Percent are so scared of the public banking solution, a vital part of MMT. No wonder the One Percent are so afraid of non totalitarian democratic socialism.
PART 1
ReplyDelete"GIVE US YOUR OPINIONS!"
Ok: here is my opinion:
All these three videos claim, that the only alternative to "capitalism" (in fact they mean "liberalism" - but they don't even realize that!) is "socialism". Main argument of Richard Wolff is, that "socialism" goes back to the word "society". So "socialism" Wolff claims cares about society and its people. And thus it is the only alternative to the system of those egoistic "capitalists" who exploit our society.
And while Wolff's evaluation of "capitalists" is right of course, his evaluation of "socialism" is all wrong: Karl Marx didn't want to care for the citizens of a state. He wanted "class fight" and wanted only "workers" to be considered valuable and rightful citizens of his utopian state. All 'the others' were to be destroyed - or at least "re-educated" at best. So all farmers - also the despaired small ones - all little store owners, all those e. g. who made a living from their little haircutter saloon or pub and so on were "reactionaries" in Marx' view.
But not only that: Karl Marx refused to consider real "workers" those who didn't' t work in the industrial production. In other words: The majority of those who worked for wages in Karl Marx' time, were by Marx not(!) considered to be genuine progressive "workers" of the class fighting "working class". But also in Karl Marx' time those, who had to work for wages worked in the 'service sector' - not in the 'production sector'.
Every family of the (bourgeois) middle-class, who were not exactly poor, had a lot of employees: In this time, when the vacuum cleaner, the washing machine the dish washer were not yet invented, these families had one or two kitchen maiden and one or two house maiden. If these middle-class families had a garden (more likely if they lived on the county side), they had a gardener. As we have a car today, in those days middle class families had one or two horses and a (inexpensive) carriage. On the country side the stable was of course next to the house - also a modest meadow. In the city horses and carriage were placed outside a town or on the periphery of a big city. And of course there were one or even two stable boys: To feed the horses, buy and transport fodder to them, cure the horses in case of illness and so on.
Karl Marx contemplates that as the industrial workers produce the products they must also be the economic owners of the products - and not the owner of the factory.
But Marx feels no intent to think for the house maiden and stable boys. How were they to be allowed to participate economically? Marx doesn't tell us - because he doesn't care about them.
But even in respect of the industrial-productive workers Marx doesn't even think about those workers, whose job it is not to produce, but to single out defect products before they can leave the factory. They destroy - and don't produce! And now they have no right to also become co-owner of the products, Karl?! Really??!!
Nowadays I would think of a factory that produces cell phones. Not only are there workers who take part in the producing process. There are also a lot of workers, who test out the products and destroy(!) those which have malfunctions. How can these workers participate on the profit of the production? Karl Marx gives us no answer, because he didn't think even to this point.
j
PART 2
ReplyDeleteA side-aspect: Marx also didn't think about automation, and didn't raise the question of who should own the profit of automation (e. g. producing robots). When Goethe (this was probably in the 1820ies) saw his first power loom he was concerned and said: "I see hands without work!". But the much later born Marx didn't even think to this point. This to You, Karl: "See, Karl, nowadays very often only robots in the factory! So no exploitation of workers! What a happy future! So clap your hands and dance, Karl!
Marxism isn't "social"! It only wants a small portion of worker to rule, while all the other citizens are considered "reactionaries", who have to be repossessed, killed and/or re-educated until the have the mind of "industrial production workers". Socialism is not "social", but only totally "a-social"!
In the third video the journalist John Nichols says something very true (although he himself fails to understand it fully himself). At 18:10 Nichols says:
"OUR DISCOURSE HAS BECOME VERY, VERY NARROW. VERY DEFINED BY WEATHY AND POWERFUL FOLKS!".
Yes, indeed, Mr. Nichols: And this is why these "folks" don't stop to hammer it into our heads: That the only alternative to the a-social Liberalism/Capitalism was the also a-social Socialism/Communism. And exactly this is it that puts our societies to a stall or sick still stand!
But of course there is an alternative - and a really social and fair one!
This alternative is the "modern Mercantilism". And only a few decades ago it still existed. One of the best examples is Sweden in the 1950ies to the end of the 1980ies. Also then Denmark and Norway were good examples. Also Germany of the 1950ies and 1960ies was mercantilist - and very successful: This as well as economically as also in respect to its social accomplishments.
… to be continued…
j
The Holy Bible is a mix of previous texts. The G-d that wants their chosen ones to 'utter destroy' everyone and everything is a different God from the one that helps Noah (the Sumeric Ziusudra). By reading the Gnostic Bible the difference between the Two (2) Gods is clear, they are Enlil (YHWH) and Enki, who was represented as a serpent in posterious propaganda. The serpent in the Garden of Eden is (again) a crappy representation of sumerian chronicles. Enki enabled the Adamu to procreate and gave him self-consciousness; something that Enlil disagreed about.
ReplyDeleteSocialism is unterstood in Europe differently from the USA and even more differently in Russia (where they tasted it). Same goes with Anarchy, originally a political philosophy than has been vulgarized (See: Punk movement).
Ok. Keep it in context guys. LOVED that Context video lol.
ReplyDeleteDemocratic Socialism. Why does it matter now since the only candidate endorsing it has thrown his voting power to the wolves. The soft sell was America's last chance and obviously she didn't want it enough even though I've noticed an overwhelming amount of support from people who realized early on it was our best and only real choice. Sanders endorsement of Hitlery is the real Bern.
Israel is about to wag the dog for gog and magog.
AkhaldanSolo
'The Day the Dollar Die', great prophetic 1979 reggae song by Peter Tosh, on his album Mystic Man
ReplyDeleteThe day the dollar die, Things are gonna be better
The day the dollar die, No more corruption
The day the dollar die, People will respect each other
Finance ministers groaning, Unemployment is rising,
And I hear my people crying
The day the dollar die, It's gonna be nice
The day the dollar die ... We will love each other
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbsRWW4Mfu0
Tho it is a compromised site, manipulating the potentially explosive US military veterans - its editors admitting 30% of what is on the site is false -
ReplyDeleteSome highly radical truth is found on Veterans Today, especially in occasional truth bursts by site principal Gordon Duff
Duff just wrote of how Britain is a result of its elites having sent off the noblest & bravest of the population to be killed in last century's wars -
"Colonial wars were, at least in the 19th century, considered a normal outlet for dealing with Europe’s 'overpopulation'. You either sent 'surplus population' overseas, exiled them to places like Australia or other penal colonies, or killed them off in wars, marching tens of thousands a day into waiting machineguns as was done at the Somme in 1915.
"The Britain we see today was made at the Somme and fields like it, where an unwanted generation was purposefully butchered. You see, Britain had no need for 'the best and brightest', the 'elites' who profit from slavery, human and narcotics trafficking, from controlling mineral wealth or staging theatrical wars knew that generations of 'the capable' would be a threat. War after war kept the British people slavish and subservient, produced leaders like Blair and Cameron."
And re the total successful manipulation of USA people -
"Even the most simplistic research will quickly yield, that the 'elites' quickly hijack every movement, every citizens revolt, using social media, paid actors, seeding black propaganda, turning anything positive, anything good or clean into 'more of the same', two-bit color revolutions and 'aggressive war on the cheap' fought by deluded fools and $300 a month mercenaries.
"All civil demonstrations in America ... are orchestrated by 'elites' and stacked with FBI informants and agent provocateurs. Everyone else is either complacent, bought off or afraid. This is what we have become, and our minders have nothing but contempt for us."
And on the world -
"Today’s world, with the Soviet Union gone, is far worse than it had been with them around. Could a case be made for Soviet Russia and Communism as a bulwark against 'the elites', all that stood then against slavery for mankind and the armies of bankers, just as Marx and Lenin had warned?"
- Gordon Duff, Veterans Today
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/06/11/neo-america-the-runaway-train/
They even controlled the financial editor of the British communist Morning Star newspaper. They must have bribed him, or got incriminating evidence against him at one of their parties.
DeleteGordon Duff is a Jew....end of story.
DeleteEr..;so who really owns all of the worlds "privately owned" Central banks.?. Oh,& in case you were misinformed,Communism was a Jewish invention. Jews have ALWAYS thought & worked COLLECTIVELY
ReplyDeleteThe (((Rothschild Family Group))). Who sometimes revert to using their German Jewish name, (((Bauer)). A tight, in-group is (((the tribe))). This (((tribe))) also owns the (((Federal Reserve Bank of America))). According to their instruction book, the 'Talmud' + commentaries and codicil, Gemara and Mishna, together called Takanot, there are only Jews who will inherit the earth, and Goyim, [animals], who will be slaves for ever; especially White, European Christians. Jesus the Christ warned the Hebrew peasants, "Do not do their Takanot!"
Delete(((Communism))) and (((Capitalism))) are the (((tribes))) way of always controlling both sides of the game = can't lose. Cunning as serpents.
*
Caroll Quigley, was the historian of the Elite 1%.
He wrote a long book about these (((Banksters))):
"Tragedy and Hope; A history of the world".
A well produced audio reading:
search = 'audiobooksfree - YouTube'
type = Tragedy and Hope
scroll = T and H audio book by John Lothe
*
A book about Capitalist abuse of the working poor.
'The Jungle", by Upton Sinclair
A good audio production:
https://librivox.org/the-jungle-by-upton-sinclair/
Thanks for the links. You can get that book T & H for free as a pdf, but its over a 1000 pages long, so the audio link is good news.
DeleteWhat's the story with Louis Theroux?
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/MrAngusJames/status/741258884850036736
For the Bank of England, there's a BOE Nominees valued 2 pound sterling, that lists two names. These known men "act for trusts that won't appear with thier names on public". Freedom of Informantion requests have been done, asking:
ReplyDeleteHave any exceptions under Companies Acts and related legislation been granted to Bank of England Nominees Ltd and if so, who has granted them and why?
No answers.
The only authority above Companies Acts is well known... The Bank was originally constructed above the ancient Temple of Mithras, London at Walbrook, dating to the founding of Londinium in antiquity by Roman garrisons. Mithras was, among other things, considered the god of contracts, a fitting association for the Bank.
Mr. Blenkinsop
ReplyDeleteasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has granted any exemptions under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1977/apr/21/shareholdings-disclosure
Many thanks to the good folks at Aangirfan for allowing my commentary.
ReplyDeleteThe tyranny, atrocities and lies of the Abrahamic religions need to be exposed and countered for the well-being of humankind.
As a youngster I kind of believed in God and I would sometimes pray if I really wanted something: 'oh please God I love Tracy, so help us out a bit tomorrow when I ask her out'. Or, in the waiting room of a large company, ' oh please God, I really want this job, please help us with this one'.
ReplyDeleteI only ever prayed when it was something really important, so it was only for very special occasions.
When I was thirty I split up with my girlfriend and was very sad, but a lovely woman in the street came to to me and gave me a leaflet for her church. There was a load of people there from her church handing out leaflets and all the women looked gorgeous.
The following Sunday I went along to their church and they were really friendly and the women were great too. So I went back again every week. It was an evangelical church with lots of young people there. But at church many of them started talking in tongues which sounded very devilish and spooky. And when I found out how fundamentalist they were I started having misgivings.
After reading some of the New Testament I started looking at the Old Testament and it turned my guts inside out. I soon lost any faith I had in God after that and I became an atheist never went to church again.
But a few years back when I really wanted a house that I had put a bid in for, I whispered on the bus on the way home, 'oh please God, I really want that house, please help me get it', even though I was an atheist.
There seems to be a natural part of the soul, the other, a part that transcends you, a part that seem more powerful and infinite. Carl Jung said it was the Collective Unconscious, a mystical part that connects not only all people together throughout time and history, but it also connects us to infinity before there was even time and space. And all living creatures connect to the Collective Unconscious as well.
And by the way, I got that house.
It was energy. God is energy and energy is real. Congrats on the house. A similar thing happened with me. Blessings.
Deletehttp://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/radio/Alan_Watt_CTTM_Blurbs.html
ReplyDeleteI thought about this all day yesterday.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to socialism, I happened across a brief description of a commune which was basically 100% socialist in a book I am reading yesterday and I thought I'd share. They were a group called the harmonists, based in western PA (also known as the Economite's). I think socialism in this sense works. They became a prosperous group, by investing the money they made as a group wisely, which then led to much more time for leisure (as we should live).
In regards to the bible, we need to remember who wrote it. Not only humans, but the time from which it was put together. God was around long before the bible was written, God, or that energy which was and is and will always be, is exactly that -energy. Do I think the bible is an important read, yes. How can you figure out this life without reading it. But I also think people should read the Quran and the Talmud (if they can get their hands on it).
As far as the link, with the quotes from the bible, such as killing a preacher's daughter if she is a whore (or something to that effect), I think the point is, if a father does his job, odds are, the daughter wouldn't be a whore. I feel that the true core at such messages is personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is something the majority of humans have trouble doing. But what's the key within the bible? Forgiveness. Forgiveness of ourselves (as God is always there to forgive and has done so before we even begin to realize we need to forgive ourselves). The problem is, how can we forgive ourselves if few of us see our own role (aka personal responsibility)?
I realize I probably haven't conveyed what I wanted as I should have. Nevertheless, I'm sharing. Have a blessed day everyone!