you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Perfect, I was looking for something good to read. You are a good friend, Jesus. =D

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

'The New Rome.'

The Manifesto‘s Marx, with his call to proletarians of the world to unite and destroy the bourgeois foundation of European nations (religion, family, property) is like Moses federating bands of uprooted migrants and lead them to the plunder of the cananean cities, and is like the prophets calling for the destruction of the nations.

What I find fascinating are the direct parallels between Capitalism and Communism, with only the rare exception, on virtually every point. These are ultimately complimentary systems.

Capitalism was (and is) to the revolutionary United States what Communism was to the revolutionary Soviet Union.

Not surprisingly, in that light, the hyper-Capitalist New Rome book of 1853, like the Communist Manifesto of 1848, also strongly attacks nationality, but from an artificial "radicalist" individualist (rather than an artificial collectivist) perspective.

The Capitalist attack upon Europe, and European peoples, is particularly emphasized in the New Rome.

And for that reason among its prescient authorship should be read.

‘…It is the duty of the American party to combat all European traditions which are incompatible with Americanism; but, above all, that of nationality. To vindicate individualism against nationality, is the office of America.’

The New Rome (1853) – pg 70 – 71

The [1776 Capitalist American] revolution is the offspring of the only people which is not a nation. A gathering of all the exiles of the world -and an exile is a man deprived of his nationality, rejected by his nation- an assemblage whose spring of action was disgust at the national cruelties which they had fled; a convocation from all the corners of the world for conscience sake, for the preservation of this individual sovereignty against the encroachments of national traditions; a horde of emigrants who knew nationality in the guise of national poverty; America was, by force of circumstances, the rendezvous of all to whom nationality had been the source of all their sufferings.

(cont...)

Nations, we have seen, are unions based upon community of speech; this the Americans renounced, in favor of a union based upon a unity of thought; and thus fell nationality, and arose the republic. The native Americans partly have been forced to doff the European part of their title; and they have done wisely. It is the duty of the American party to combat all European traditions which are incompatible with Americanism; but, above all, that of nationality. To vindicate individualism against nationality, is the office of America. This is, at the same time, the whole force and scope of the revolution; thus, the revolution which arose in and with America, must for ever return to it; and America, which began in revolution, must live in it, and end with it. When the dominion of nationality is crushed, and the sovereignty of the individual is attained, everywhere and everyhow, the missions of the [Capitalist] revolution and of America will both be accomplished.

Ask yourself how Russia and Multilateralism runs? Is it communist, Marxist, or something else? The Neocons were certainly originally Trotskyites ie. the Old Bolsheviks that now live currently in NY or had lived in NY, the capital of global finance, before they took Schiff's and Loeb's banker money in hand and started a revolution in Russia for an imperial powers agenda. That imperial power being Germany and the US. These Bolsheviks were always foreign to Russia and they destroyed Tsarist Russia, which was never a pedestal of freedom and happiness anyway. For they would not be able to rile up the peasants for their cause before executing them if it wasn't so.

Now, these old Bolsheviks are here in the US, to spread 'democracy abroad' ie. fake democracy in neology only. They appear to be pushing the global revolution agenda as Trotsky intended but in this case using democracy as its cover.

Which Jews were persecuted in Bolshevik Russia? The Chabad-Lubavitch community. Zionists were too. Communist apostate Jews for the Bolsheviks eventually murdered many of them but for four years after the foreign revolution were indecisive on what do because they believed these Jews to be one of their own. Trump, Netanyahu and Putin have their own Chabad rabbis. So, then ask yourself why Alexander's book '200 Years Together' now on samisdat.info for all to read, which exposes the origins of Zionism and Judeo-Russian relations is censored in the US from publication by US publishers?

Putin literally stated that 80% of the Bolsheviks in early Bolshevik Russia were Jewish. Why would he state this? He then goes unto show his appreciation for Stalin. In fact, Russia Today, has plenty of good documentaries they broadcast by third parties not affiliated with the state, but I recently saw one on them about the film industry and its journalist couldn't help but praise Stalin for all he did. They even have holidays in Russia concerning Stalin.

I believe the reason why the book is banned in the west is because the Bolsheviks are in the US, and once you understand how authoritarians and corporations can bestow their will on communism and capitalism, both become inseparable.

Capitalism breeds invidiualism and eventually radical individualism if not kept in check—to spread and demoralize. Which would explain why the Chabad movement, once stationed in socialit Kibbutz's is very powerful in the US, being the backbone of Kushner and company but whilst at the same time, the geopolitical goal of the neoconservative doctrine, or the new Trotskyite doctrine is utilized in its full capacity.

This video, named the Hans Habe project illustrates just how screwed the US was before it was and after it was founded.

Keep in the back of your mind Truth Inc. and corporations when you watch this video.

https://invidio.us/watch?v=2U_yxtjcrd4 B

The New Rome also predicts the World Wars and Cold War.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Oh I agree. I am not one to call the unbridled, savage capitalism from the USA as being wholly different from the communism of the USSR: Both redistribute the fruit of the labor of the masses into the hands of a chosen few. Only the apparent method of "choosing", as if there were such a thing, these few, differs: one is pseudo-economic and the other is political. But in the end, they are THE SAME PROCESS. I fully agree and have observed this many times, only to be called a commie, which as you know is as far from the truth as anything can be.

Anyway, capitalism CAN be tempered by socialism, which communism cannot. Communism is unerringly and absolutely totalitarian. Capitalism, when correctly tempered by appropriate socialism, through a (an ideally direct) democratic process, can yield impressive results that approximate the theoretical framework pushed upon unsuspecting students in business schools: "Hierarchies of competence dictate the outcomes of businesses and populations." Of course, absent DIRECT democracy, power hoards itself and this delicate balance breaks down over time.

And even with direct democracy, external factors can come and ruin this most beautiful of socioeconomic systems. Just ask Colonel Gaddafi, may he rest in peace. Oh, and before you say he was a brutal murderer, I reiterate: NOBODY ever reaches and retains the heights of political power without blood on their hands.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I volunteered for a farmer co-op and I have to say small local communitarianism/utilitarianism has many socialsit parallels. However, I don't believe a corrupt state should control the means of production and your labor. But I believe that is socialism def. wrongly.

Public lands are a very interesting concept. Now everything is privatised and bought off. Land use to be a right under allodial title and God's Law, now it is based on financialization and privitisation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Yes, socialism does NOT mean "the state taking ownership of the means of production". That's communism. Now it's true, some socialist countries such as Canada have the government owning utilities for example, such as multi-billion-dollar hydroelectric dams and their humongous distribution network. But such industries are few and far between, such as roads too for example.

Overall, socialism basically means tilting the economic balance BACK from over-exploitation and profiteering towards society somewhat. The extent of that "somewhat" is of course extremely variable. But without socialism, capitalism is utter savagery.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Though, let's be honest. It's effect can lead to such a system. Belloc's Distributionalism seems like a far better option.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

It can, but that's political: when the political system is hijacked by a deep state and foreign interests, how are the people to expect anything decent from it?

In the end only truly direct democracy is democratic. It is not the best system, for the best system is that of Aristotle: putting a superior being on the throne of dictator of the world. Works great in theory, but the practice is made difficult, especially in our era of mediocracy, by the fact that superior beings are the object of supreme hatred by their inferiors.

Generally speaking, the populace hates excellence and would never accept such a being as their ruler. Sort of a bad situation to be in.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I think starting with the monetary system is a good bet. First, rid of usury, i.e., interest bearing loans as money.

superior beings are the object of supreme hatred by their inferiors.

There's no such thing as a superior being, except for Yeshua. That's why I think a decentralized individualist approach based on communitarianism is the only real answer. Maybe distribuism could also be imposed.

This is why I love real Christianity. Yeshua was the light of this world and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, particularly modern Catholicism slowly bastardised his teachings, and the reformation did much of the same by making usury great again through Calvinism and the creation of usury capitalism without any moral code.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

But if he came back, and stayed for long, it would be appropriate that he took the position of Emperor of Earth or the equivalent, correct?

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

He wouldn't need to because all would follow Him and do good who remained the elect. But yes, even the elect can be mistaken, so he would need to take the position of ruler and kick satan off the thrown.

But today, we can live HIS will and open up the Kingdom of God within ourselves.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

NOBODY ever reaches and retains the heights of political power without blood on their hands.

Emphasis on Political.