Stopping communism in the West..
Lenin understood that communism comes from central bank control..
Communism is the centralized means of production.
If you control the money supply, and it's value (interest rates) - you then control the means of production.
Centralized production today comes in the guise of independent companies.
Companies that directly or indirectly are under the control of the banking system . The Rothschilds.
It doesn't matter what labels you give them - or their apparent independence from each other.
They all lead back to finance. The control is with those that finance.
The central banks. The Rothschild cabal.
The rest is smoke and mirrors for the sheep - to merely give the appearance of 'capitalism' at work.
And the beauty of this creep into total communism? (from the global domination perspective)...
A 'capitalist' system that is set up( within the actual reality of a communist system - HAS TO FAIL.)
Free markets and centrally controlled money supply are fundamentally opposed to each other.
...... the appearance of free markets failing...... Of course they will fail, they were never meant to succeed!
It never was free market capitalism!
It has always been communism with a mask.
State welfare payments?
State subsidy for industry?
State military complex?
State sanctioning by regulation?
The are communistic in nature, not free market.
Monopolies of industry is communism.
It doesn't matter what name you give it, or what company logo is flying over it's head office.
When the puppet masters are the controllers of the money, the images are just theater for the sheep.
What we need to see today is that communism isn't some failed ideology left over from Soviet Russia....
....it is the system we have been living under ourselves- for decades.
The new deal?- maybe that was a clue as to what was really going on....
This was the final phase in the Hegelian dialectic started initially by the Wall st financial implosion a few years earlier...
Problem. Reaction. solution....
If you look at modern history of the USA and western Europe- through the lens of how I have just described it - it begins to look startlingly clear.
We have all been duped into communism through the fake guise of free market capitalism...
Tracing the financial puppet masters is also very clear....
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
(and if you control the money, you write the laws, anyway...)
The one thing 'they' never took into consideration - or at lease vastly underestimated, at any rate....
The internet. The accessibility of information.
Cultural marxism has been going into overdrive for the last few years - and for good reason in my opinion.
The point of no return has arrived for the globalist .(one that I think was not entirely intentional- not at this point in time).
The internet has forced their position.
Truth doesn't mind being held to the light. Lies have a big problem with it.
..and the internet is the torch into the dark...
'They' have to make their move in an all or nothing attempt at one world government.
The beauty - and danger - of the situation we find ourselves in today - is that 'they' have everything to lose.
If the one world new order is not realized now, - it is in very real danger of being exposed for what it is... and destroyed forever.
After hundreds of years of manipulating, and millions of lives being sacrificed in the world domination game, they might lose it all in moment.
And if the lessons are learned from history - they will never return...
'They' have a lot to lose. And that makes 'them' very, very dangerous.
We are billions, and we really have nothing to lose.
And that makes us very dangerous too...
I think there are other words that describe it better.
Communism = no ruler and no monopoly (no ownership) and no state.
Oligarchy = few rulers and large monopolies, often using a state for keeping control like a mafia organization.
I think we need to use a more precise language. Everything bad is not communism.
Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning 'few', and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning 'to rule or to command')[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.
Communism (as defined by modern politics), is a centralized means of production. (part of it, anyway).
All political communist rule has ended up as dictatorships.
Or oligarchy, or some totalitarian state in one form or another.
Everything bad you described is present day United States & co
With all spying , secret police, political rigging , censorship ... west is right now way worse than anything we have seen in the communism times (+ no free education & healthcare).
Everything is lie and deception , time for collapse ...
Yes. It is the dictatorship-part and ‘centralized means of production’-part that troubles us. Not the commune-part.
The term "communism" was first coined and defined in its modern definition by the French philosopher and writer Victor d'Hupay. In his 1777 book Projet de communauté philosophe, d'Hupay pushes the philosophy of the Enlightenments to principles which he lived up to during most of his life in his bastide of Fuveau (Provence). This book can be seen as the cornerstone of communist philosophy as d'Hupay defines this lifestyle as a "commune" and advises to "share all economic and material products between inhabitants of the commune, so that all may benefit from everybody's work".
I think you make a big mistake when you confuse a ‘voluntary sharing economy’ (a commune) with dictatorship.
I'm not confusing a commune with the 'political communism' as a system.
Communes (socialism) as a small scale system can work fine - and do work fine. (dunbar's number, kind of thing)
Communism (non local) as a political system- as in the definition of modern day, - always leads to dictatorships.
I'm not trying to re define the words. I'm trying to strip the facade off what we were led to believe, and the actual reality we have been living under for the last few decades..
Well, I think you are trying to give words a new meaning. Example:
It is not communism. It is successful entrepreneurial activity. Capitalism is all about building monopolies:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536
Everything bad is not communism. You need to choose better words.
...you are not understanding the wider picture my friend...
Labels are irrelevant.
(example )
...if apple sold 100% of mobile phones in the US - it would be a monopoly, yes?
If apple was financed by the rothchilds, and rothchilds owned the fed reserve - then apple would become the centralized means of production.
ergo it would be communism, but hidden.
multiply that by 10 corporations, covering food production (monsanto?), big pharma, energy, etc... and you have communism (being a centralized means of production)
Because it isn't labeled 'communism', it doesn't change the reality.
The Rothschild are the financial system.
maybe, but I would counter with 'you need to choose a wider perspective.'
cheers mate.
If apple or rothshild shared all the phones they produced (or money they earned) with everyone else it would become communism. But they are not sharing their income.
Yes labels are irrelevant. And this is one of the reasons I find it unnecessary to use the label communism incorrectly. Especially when it doesn’t describe the situation very well.