# Communism: The True Story



## Deleted member 65 (Sep 14, 2020)

By suggestion of _@KorbenDallas_, I will create a thread all about communism. Now I have my own ideas to it, however, it will go into politics and economics. Which I have enough on my plate already in my Ancap subreddits. So I won't go into it unless there's an interesting comment on this thread. 

But for your pleasure, just post anything you would want to know or say about the true origins and motives of communism here!





> Note: This OP was recovered from the Wayback Archive.





> Note: Archived Sh.org replies to this OP are included in this thread.


----------



## KD Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: KorbenDallasDate: 2018-08-20 07:13:47Reaction Score: 3


Please, let us keep in mind the nature of this forum. Straight up politics we most definitely do not need. _i.e. good vs bad._

As far as Communism, or anything else, as they affected the history of mankind through being misrepresented, misused or substituted the true state of things, or something of that nature... always welcome.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ApollyonDate: 2018-08-20 07:20:56Reaction Score: 0


Communism seeks to ultimately do away with the state. In this event what stands in the way of the mafia is anyones guess.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: mythstifieDDate: 2018-08-20 17:11:17Reaction Score: 11


I'm in between flights right now, but briefly I'll set the stage for how Communism relates to the spirit of this site. Some of you may like the tenant's of socialism and that's fine, I do too. But I don't think it works on this little planet of ours.

My opinion is that it's destined to fail. So what's the purpose then? 

It's the greatest history stealing machine ever conceived. 

Perhaps someone a bit more versed in Marxism can start by explaining what a Marxist Interpretation of History actually means? Remember how he claims that Capitalism is a progression on a road that ends in total communism. So how can we relate this to the almost certain fact that our ancient and even recent history is being stolen from us?

	Post automatically merged: 8/20/18

My flight is delayed so I'll have some fun for a minute!  The reason it won't work with Earth is because it's too small. In fact, we're truly in big trouble and it has nothing to do with climate change (although this will be the excuse for action). Overpopulation is going to be a huge problem VERY SOON. 

I sure hope the world is truly round because the only solution is the stars. I feel like we need to be urgently working on moon and Mara colonies. We need to figure out how to farm in space. We need to mine asteroids. 

If we could tap into the insane potential of the solar system, then MAYBE Marx is right and we can have a truly Star Trek like abundance that allows everyone to win. 

But back to reality, why in the seven hells did Marx think that the 19th century was the time? It makes no sense. Mankind was in no position to implement such an ambitious idea! Here we are in the midst of exploiting and raping mother earth to death, the green revolution hasn't happened yet, but NOW Marx thinks we can implement a world wide resource management program that everyone will equally benefit from? I can't even fathom doing this without a supercomputer first of all. 

Either communism was designed as a scam or there's some hidden technology in the wings that's waiting for us once we finally do achieve this world wide goal. Perhaps we've seen glimpses of this in the anomalies discussed on this site.


----------



## Wildfire2000 (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: WildFire2000Date: 2018-08-21 00:56:56Reaction Score: 10


Steam power was more efficient and cleaner than our carbon based fuel system used today. We have all those images and ideas surrounding a possible atmospheric energy/electricity system possibly based on zero-point energy. So, are we looking at a time-frame in history before this purge where it WAS possible for all of that to have worked?

Tangent here, but I'll loop it back in - I was raised in a near-cult like version of Christianity, far more study of the bible and things than the majority of self-proclaimed Christians today bother to read, and quite honestly, if you read Christ's teachings, he preaches socialism and communism to a point. Christ told people to support their neighbors, to not be greedy, to give of yourself until it hurts so that everyone else around you can be built up. If someone asked for your coat, you were to give him your travelling cloak as well. Don't walk 1 mile with someone, walk 2, etc. When asked what the two greatest commandments of the Law were supposed to be, he told them 1) Love the Lord thy God with all their heart, soul, and strength, then said And the second one is the same, Love thy neighbor as much as you love yourself, on these two laws hinge all of the Law and the prophets. There are other things as well, but those are the basics. The reason I bring it up is that there is a hard, hard push due to societal 'indoctrination' in the US that makes even hardcore Christians like the ones I grew up around that are VERY anti-socialism and anti-communism, they're very, very pro-capitalism and pro-US government. I lean towards the pure ideology of helping one another, empathy, sharing and all of that, but I'm considered misguided, because it's SO WRONG, THE US IS THE BEST and all of that. I find it a weird dissonance, personally.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: mythstifieDDate: 2018-08-21 02:55:21Reaction Score: 1


Well, imagine how many coats you could give away if you could afford to buy more?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: humanoidlordDate: 2018-08-23 01:28:25Reaction Score: 0


socialism worked in the previous civlization, but it obviously doesn't work in the modern civlization, where entire countries go apeshit over oil


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ApollyonDate: 2018-08-23 02:07:53Reaction Score: 2




humanoidlord said:


> socialism worked in the previous civlization, but it obviously doesn't work in the modern civlization, where entire countries go apeshit over oil


That wasn't socialism it was *Distributism*


----------



## Deleted member 65 (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: PrincepAugusDate: 2018-08-23 02:13:23Reaction Score: 1


Yep ^^


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: humanoidlordDate: 2018-08-23 17:26:55Reaction Score: 0




Apollyon said:


> That wasn't socialism it was *Distributism*


its the same concept with a different name


----------



## Deleted member 65 (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: PrincepAugusDate: 2018-08-23 22:44:07Reaction Score: 1


Btw, I am Ancap (as said many times before), so you guys can berate me for being an absolute capitalist lol.


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2018-08-26 18:04:27Reaction Score: 5


According to the Hegelian dialectic, socialism (ie: communism) was the antithesis to the thesis of laizzez-faire (sp?) capitalism. Neither are the goal. thesis-antithesis-synthesis Basically, create a problem then offer the solution. Guessing the "synthesis" is one world government but who knows what's in the cards?
If we had a global government once before with technological advances in which most people were fed and happy and it fell for whatever reason (hostile takeover?) then maybe those who are erasing our history and globalizing the various nations want some form of what we had but impervious to hostile takeovers leaving themselves in permanent control. Spitballin' here.


----------



## Deleted member 65 (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: PrincepAugusDate: 2018-08-29 00:51:51Reaction Score: 1


Here's an excellent video on the what I think is the true story of communism and why I think it's not the TRUE Jews fault. In fact, it is their tragedy while the real infiltrators are anyone who claims to be "Jews" and any other people who would utilize this control or sellout.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: cthatruth18Date: 2018-10-27 23:01:40Reaction Score: 5


Ok, so who are the True Jews? I don't think there are any.


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2018-10-29 11:02:36Reaction Score: 18


The fundamental idea of Marxism in regards to our history is called "historical materialism".

This is the philosophy on which Marxism, and then Communism and Socialism, were built on.

Marx asserts that all of our history can be explained by workers and capitalists eternally fighting over ressources, and with every fight, things get progressively better.

He said at the beginning, capitalists had everything, and workers had nothing. And in the end, workers will have everything, and there will be no capitalists any longer, which will ultimately result in the utopian paradise of communism.

The problem is that the entire idea of history being only a fight over material resources neglected all higher aspects of human life, like spirituality, empathy, love, altruism, individuality, education, culture - and reduced everything to the most basic aspect. This is why communism had such a devastating effect.

Marx also ignored the authoritarian and destructive power of the state and failed to take into account how history was more a fight between authoritarian leaders and average people than a fight between capitalists and average people.

In fact throughout our entire history it was the capitalists who secured freedom, prosperity and abundance. Only when a couple of people installed a central banking system, with the help of state structures, was money used to enslave people.

Read Igor Shafarevich and his book _The Socialist Phenomenon_, in which he worked out how Socialism existed throughout ancient and recent history. It is the only book that asks the question of how our entire history relates to Socialism.

The reason capitalists and conservative people are attacked today is because they represent true freedom and individuality, which means they are able to live in small family groups without reliance on the central state. People who don't enjoy this kind of freedom tend to identify with the collectivist state and media conglomerate, which promises to end their miserable individual lifes, merging with the whole into something that no longer allows individual expression.

Historically, as Schafarevich writes, elements of "Socialism" weren't ideological. And most importantly, it wasn't centrally managed, but born out of local customs and the decisions of free people.

When it comes to the socialist elements in the heretic christian groups (Cathars, etc.), it becomes obvious that everything they did was born out of religious and spiritual concepts, which are completely lacking in Marxism. Without those concepts there is no unifying bond. While it can't be denied that those early groups had a certain collectivist attitude to them, it looks like it was a genuine attempt to recreate the original way of life, which did not focus on material aspects as much as the middle ages did. More importantly, it was rooted within a world that was basically decentralized and consisted of small local groups, which allows a high degree of freedom to chose from multiple ways of life. The spiritual foundation also was built upon radical non-violence, in contrast to Marxism. When most of the medieval world was embracing trade and free markets and started to become more and more hedonistic, the heretic groups realized that they need to protect the spiritual knowledge they inherited against the rising power of institutionalized religion.

When Marx wrote out his insanity, the industrial revolution had enslaved many worker people, but he simply asserted that the entire history of humankind was like the industrial revolution. In reality people lived in abundance during the middle ages, and happily shared their surplus with other people, simply because it is human nature to share when you have more then you need.

Marx said capitalism always leads to communism. So if Marx was honest with his ideas, he would have supported pure capitalism. According to his logic, this movement would have made communism appear faster. Instead, he did the opposite, born out of his sick and fractured mind.

With ignoring the pathological aspects of nation states, central banks and central leadership, Marxism destroys everything that is human.



> Shafarevich's book _The Socialist Phenomenon_,[6] which was published in the US by Harper & Row in 1980, analyzed numerous examples of socialism, from ancient times, through various medieval heresies, to a variety of modern thinkers and socialist states. From these examples he claimed that all the basic principles of socialist ideology derive from the urge to suppress individuality. _The Socialist Phenomenon_ consists of three major parts:[7]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2018-11-10 03:20:14Reaction Score: 3


Well done, dreamtime. I don't think I've ever heard it explained so well. You deconstructed the concept nicely.


----------



## Onijunbei (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: OnijunbeiDate: 2018-11-10 03:50:07Reaction Score: 6


Whatever it's alleged to be... Communism, in the 20th century, was nothing short of destructive.  It worked as a dialectic in the grand strategy of divide and conquer. It sets up war after war after war.. With the destruction of well over 100 million people. 
Let's list the main players. 

Stalin: Union striker from Georgia Russia who managed to effectively shut down munition operations while Russia was fighting Japan.
Trotsky : a New Yorker who receives funding from the major bank operators of America. Any form of terrorism is useful as long as the objective is met. 
Lenon: a well known trouble maker in Russia as well as Europe, Germany purposely ships him by rail back to Russia as an espionage agreement to weaken Russia during World War I.
Mao: son of a wealthy farmer who used his father's capitalism to attend Peking University in China and Yale University in America. Yes... He attended Yale.. Home to Skull and Bones 
Ho Chi Minh: agent provocateur of MI6 and the OSS. He would also help to rescue downed Allied pilots in the Asian theater.

The Bolshevics receive their funding from American Capitalists heavily tied to Zionism.  They use whatever means necessary including terrorism to achieve their goals, including the capture of the Royal family. They are resisted by the White army, unfortunately the Reds would prevail.  Thousands of churches are burned to the ground and many a nun are raped and many of the clergy are tortured and killed.  Synagogues were unharmed and one of the first laws to be passed provided stiff penalties against anti semetism. Many in Europe saw and heard of this destruction, including a Catholic Austrian who would serve in the German army during World War II. 

I'll write more later


----------



## dreamtime (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: dreamtimeDate: 2018-11-10 09:06:25Reaction Score: 2




whitewave said:


> Well done, dreamtime. I don't think I've ever heard it explained so well. You deconstructed the concept nicely.


Thanks. Recently I saw what the ideology makes to people around me: they become unbearable, as if they want to pull down others into their misery.

Marx and others are basically un-readable and confusing. So for understanding I mainly looked at the wikipedia article in "simple english": Marxism - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which takes away the headache causing word salad.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: UnusualBeanDate: 2018-11-10 10:06:29Reaction Score: 7


As dreamtime said, the world used to be naturally socialist. It's our nature. Greed is a cultural disease that's been inflicted upon us by TPTB. One way that they do this is by conflating socialism and communism, scaring people into a constant scarcity mindset. In socialism, you keep your fair share and give away the rest, but in communism, you share _everything._ No sane person wants to share _everything_ with _everybody_.

I saw a post on reddit a while back that I can't seem to find anymore, but it went into the etymology of the word "emperor" and proposed that emperors were actually conduits of socialism in the old world, managing the redistribution and stockpiling of resources for large areas of land that were dubbed "empires". The reason they came to this conclusion was that "emperor" and "imparter" (meaning "one who bestows") have the same etymological origin.

TPTB do a lot of shady stuff with words.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: GroundhogLfeDate: 2018-11-10 11:40:07Reaction Score: 7


The problem with 20th century communism was that people were sold an idea of an utopia that wasn't true. The proletariat thought that everyone will be equal and amongst themselves that is how they felt. It was sold to them as the dictatorship of the proletariat, none above the other, each for a fitting role. However the proletariat did not understand that the people who are running the show only meant to make the proletariat feel equal among themselves.

It was always actually extreme fascism where the state acquired all the wealth and power. Like the Fascist Mussolini said “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”, now for example in the Bolshevik Russia / Soviet Union how was that different?

That kind of a society to work also always needs purifications. The critical thinkers must be quieted down, the educated, the intelligentsia has to come down. It needs a civil war, the purifications will follow in one way or another. If you supported to bring up this system, but are not high enough, know that the higher ups see you rather just as a useful tool and you'll either be with the proletariat or be quieted down.

Brotherhood, equality and liberty and even socialism was given a bad name because of this and socialism extremely so under the national socialists even though a state like that can prosper well and have no need for racial supremacy ideology. I feel like what went on the world was an attack towards those ideologies so at time people could be educated that we tried those things, didn't work. The same could be happening again with the word liberty being painted on black due to the 'liberal' leftist people and their narrowed minds. They're far from what it really represents. If people ever turned their back on those ideas and it could be teached in history so people would rather resent those ideas it would be a shame, as it all would just have been based on a lie. I don't think the megalomaniacs will get through with it, but will rather fade away as people are getting more educated outside of the school system. It is an age of enlightement, we'll be good.

ps. I don't think people will ever be equal unless we become clones. Some people will always be better at something and worse at something else. I support equal opportunities, but a forced equality, a same set of narrow box for all the people so no one just would ever feel bad about himself / herself is against the 'natural' order and I oppose it. I support the idea of helping those in need if you have that capability, but it doesn't have to be stripped off from your backbone against your will, it must not be so, I oppose it. In terms of life, we are all equal, but in terms of what each and everyone can provide to the society we currently live in or similar, no we are not equal, some are more easily replaced, perhaps an utopia of such is possible however, but we never saw those attempted in the 20th century.


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2018-11-11 07:45:43Reaction Score: 2


Equal in life but not in function. Problems arise when we don't equally value everyone's function. The early Christians advocated a commune-ist lifestyle and it immediately had life-threatening problems (Annanias and Saphira).
Ayn Rand wrote several books about the ideology of  socialism/communism and its practical applications. Depressing as hell and she's way too verbose for my tastes but she certainly makes her point and drives it home.
As long as there is continued abundance, people will generally behave themselves and share with others but just the rumor of a suspected shortage of ANYTHING and otherwise decent people instantly turn into greedy, thieving asshats.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: UnusualBeanDate: 2018-11-11 09:11:24Reaction Score: 1




whitewave said:


> Equal in life but not in function. Problems arise when we don't equally value everyone's function. The early Christians advocated a commune-ist lifestyle and it immediately had life-threatening problems (Annanias and Saphira).
> Ayn Rand wrote several books about the ideology of  socialism/communism and its practical applications. Depressing as hell and she's way too verbose for my tastes but she certainly makes her point and drives it home.
> As long as there is continued abundance, people will generally behave themselves and share with others but just the rumor of a suspected shortage of ANYTHING and otherwise decent people instantly turn into greedy, thieving asshats.


In case you didn't catch it, _communism_ and _socialism_ are not the same thing. They should not be combined into one under any circumstance.


----------



## asatiger1966 (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: asatiger1966Date: 2018-11-11 09:48:52Reaction Score: 5


My opinion, all governments since before castles were used as fortresses, have been purveyors ,purposely, of human suffering. I may jump around with my train of thought, but be kind.
This planet was originally a place of pure energy. Several words are used to describe this force but I like "Love". Experience tells me that several groups of outliers in our universe, have fought for control of earth for longer that we can conceive.  The original spirits had to modify their structure to keep pace with the new and different types that were arriving to conquer the planet. 

Tens of thousands of years pass and the spirits had changed to a form similar to humans. Every time the sprites became more material they would alter some of the natural accessibility  to think and speak creation. We went from instance to using rituals to return the original powers of creation.

Wars have happened over our planet forever. We were aware of that for many years. There are good visitors that try to help the humans regain our spirits and bad visitors that want to use humanity in some manner that benefits them. When the earth is returned to a positive force it helps stabilize the universe.

The communists were controlled by a form of parasite that lives off negative emotions and suffering. Almost all governoments are controlled by these parasites. The emotion Love is a major defense against them. They can be killed with some energy streams, a bullet to the host will work They hate any spiritual activity and will infiltrate and destroy.

All war is on purpose fought for power and to create human suffering. My opinion only.


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2018-11-11 17:28:39Reaction Score: 1




UnusualBean said:


> In case you didn't catch it, _communism_ and _socialism_ are not the same thing. They should not be combined into one under any circumstance.


You might want to explain that to the Russians, a (formerly) communist country. They called themselves the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: UnusualBeanDate: 2018-11-12 04:01:58Reaction Score: 1




whitewave said:


> You might want to explain that to the Russians, a (formerly) communist country. They called themselves the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic.


All part of the plan to confuse people about what socialism actually is and make them reject it in stride with communism. Subjugating people is easy when they do most of the work themselves.


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2018-11-12 06:07:51Reaction Score: 0


Can't argue with that logic. You do you, boo.


----------



## Magnus (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: MagnusDate: 2018-11-12 09:04:16Reaction Score: 2




cthatruth18 said:


> Ok, so who are the True Jews? I don't think there are any.


Nobody can claim to be an authentic Hebrew /Jew / Son of the Tribes of Israel.

Why?  All the patrilineal records dating back to Adam were destroyed in the razing and  destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70 A.D. 

Since then, nobody can prove they are of the Tribes of Israel *authentically*

They can claim to be of Jew-ish lineage.


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2018-11-12 20:03:28Reaction Score: 2


It was my understanding that "Jewishness" was through the matrilineal line?


----------



## Magnus (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: MagnusDate: 2018-11-13 06:05:16Reaction Score: 3




whitewave said:


> It was my understanding that "Jewishness" was through the matrilineal line?


Indeed, you are correct and your statement supports my above statement. 
Nowadays:  Jew-ISH if your mother is Jew-ISH

Hebrew scriptures recorded the father to son lineage... check Genesis for the "begats"

Is it possible to tell the story of Communism without speaking of the Jewish involvement?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: tupperawareDate: 2019-03-19 04:17:41Reaction Score: 0




PrincepAugus said:


> By suggestion of _@KorbenDallas_, I will create a thread all about communism. Now I have my own ideas to it, however, it will go into politics and economics. Which I have enough on my plate already in my Ancap subreddits. So I won't go into it unless there's an interesting comment on this thread.
> 
> But for your pleasure, just post anything you would want to know or say about the true origins and motives of communism here!


This *Bicameral Mind* theory has a lot of major utility for the Stolen History Theory.  Basically, the brain structure called the *Corpus Callosum* currently suppresses the overt influence of the right (feminine?) side of the brain. Pre 500BC?, the elite ruled over groups that were very easy to control and much more sheeplike than most people currently. Propaganda (Epic of Gilgamesh, Old Testament, any list of commandments etc.) was easily soaked up by the right side which would actually talk/whisper to the left, like a hypnotist you just can't get rid of.  Below is a good post where the theory is with a little of mine.... that the more the CC is broken down the more the tendency for people to accept Socialism and Communism.  The prime motivators of communism may come from a long line of "influencers" that have a group memory of dominating the BC sheep pre 500BC. That control was disrupted by language, cultural and writing influences. Linguistics, Sociology and Literature specialists were not around to find the levers of control and employ them to maintain the status quo. The controllers have longed to return us to the golden age of sheepdom and the path to that is through socialism ending up in many different varieties of communism.

In short, communism was just the way things operated for thousands of years in most city states, pre 500BC. Many like the Cretan state were heavily controlled/influenced by women. Marx failed since he did not have the knowledge to reestablish through any means the injection of control memes into the right side (feminine?) of the brain "and" lower the CC barriers to right over left control.  Prediction: It won't be men percentage wise that foster the return of the Bicameral Mind. So what's the benefit (to many) of that return? A safer much less free world of course. Freedom from wars, greed, alpha male dominance, football, Christianity/Islam, the stock market and biggest benefit of all - manspreading.

http://www.julianjaynes.org/jjsforum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=499
Re: Mind Control and Cults by lenny52682 
"The relationship between bicameral phenomena and cult/totalitarian phenomena is something that I would like to explore more. There seem to be several points of agreement as well as a few important differences. When examining schizophrenia as a vestige of the bicameral mind, Jaynes was careful to point out that this illness is only a partial relapse into the bicameral mind. The schizophrenic is socialized as a conscious person and, although he hears voices, he does not loose his analog-I.

I would like to suggest that, while schizophrenia represents a partial relapse into the bicameral mind on an individual level, cults and totalitarian societies represent a partial relapse into the bicameral mind at a social level.

Here are some points of agreement that I have been able to discern. The cult leader/ totalitarian ruler is analogous to the steward king. The doctrines of cults and totalitarian regimes are like the mystical world views found in bicameral life. *The command economies under communism, fascism, cultism, etc. are analogous to the palatial economies of bicameral society. The pyramidal power structures are shared by both social systems as well. Lastly, both social systems are basically barren of any significant individual volition.*

However there are differences as well. Cult members and citizens under totalitarianism are not devoid of consciousness. Their sense of free will is repressed through manipulation and brute force but it still exists. Bicamerals did not possess free will and therefore, were not repressed with propaganda and the threat of violence. Cults are primarily destructive in nature but bicameral society was task-oriented and quite constructive in nature. The first instances of political/religious oppression and rebellion occurred in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. It is interesting that many other instances of repression in the conscious era have been brought about by a partial relapse into bicamerality i.e. totalitarianism and cultism."


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: TyrionDate: 2019-03-19 12:11:11Reaction Score: 2


Communism is and always was a plot to destroy civilization. The Soviet Union always depended on the west for it’s survival. American men sacrificed their lives in Normandy, the Ardennes, Market Garden, Montecassino, North Africa... for the survival of Stalin, how can you blame The Zionists when gentiles do their bidding so willingly.


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2019-03-19 14:47:42Reaction Score: 1




tupperaware said:


> This *Bicameral Mind* theory has a lot of major utility for the Stolen History Theory.  Basically, the brain structure called the *Corpus Callosum* currently suppresses the overt influence of the right (feminine?) side of the brain. Pre 500BC?, the elite ruled over groups that were very easy to control and much more sheeplike than most people currently. Propaganda (Epic of Gilgamesh, Old Testament, any list of commandments etc.) was easily soaked up by the right side which would actually talk/whisper to the left, like a hypnotist you just can't get rid of.
> 
> In short, communism was just the way things operated for thousands of years in most city states, pre 500BC. Many like the Cretan state were heavily controlled/influenced by women. Marx failed since he did not have the knowledge to reestablish through any means the injection of control memes into the right side (feminine?) of the brain "and" lower the CC barriers to right over left control.  Prediction: It won't be men percentage wise that foster the return of the Bicameral Mind. So what's the benefit (to many) of that return? A safer much less free world of course. Freedom from wars, greed, alpha male dominance, football, Christianity/Islam, the stock market and biggest benefit of all - manspreading.


Correct me if I've misunderstood your post but it seems to be saying that woman are sheeplike, easily led, schizophrenia-prone and the reason for communism.
Btw, the Cretan society was the pinnacle of civilization in its day. The Greeks, being their natural enemy, made the word "cretan" into the epitaph it is today. At the height of the Cretan civilization, Greeks were the "barbarians".
Have you considered that in a golden age where such societies as Cretes thrived, a communal living arrangement may have been the norm and not the dreaded downfall of freedom it is today? Many words and concepts have changed meaning over time into their diametrical opposites. I'm not saying that's the case, but only that it could have been. We don't know. As with much of stolen history, we just don't know and it denotes a more circumspect way of thinking to consider that things may not have been as we've been told.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: tupperawareDate: 2019-03-19 15:41:40Reaction Score: 1




whitewave said:


> Correct me if I've misunderstood your post but it seems to be saying that woman are sheeplike, easily led, schizophrenia-prone and the reason for communism.
> Btw, the Cretan society was the pinnacle of civilization in its day. The Greeks, being their natural enemy, made the word "cretan" into the epitaph it is today. At the height of the Cretan civilization, Greeks were the "barbarians".
> Have you considered that in a golden age where such societies as Cretes thrived, a communal living arrangement may have been the norm and not the dreaded downfall of freedom it is today? Many words and concepts have changed meaning over time into their diametrical opposites. I'm not saying that's the case, but only that it could have been. We don't know. As with much of stolen history, we just don't know and it denotes a more circumspect way of thinking to consider that things may not have been as we've been told.


Just the opposite.

The right side brain has always been characterized as having many feminine qualities - .
This "oversimplification" is everywhere and very catchy. The latest generations grew up on that definition.

Based on that and the convincing (to me) Julian Jaynes BC theory its easy to make a connection between the increasing focus on these feminine qualities as always positive and some kind of underlying "move" back towards a BC controlled society. It could be just an unstoppable natural progression from male dominated non BC to female dominated BCism.  You probably won't find this connection anywhere yet since is sounds sexist. Hyping the right side of the brain as the stronghold of the feminine spirit for around 30 years is major sexism/propaganda if you ask me. But then that is somewhat balanced by the much less advertised left side having nothing but "masculine" qualities.  Talk about "divide and conquer"!

Communal living arrangements pre 500BC? according to Jaynes would be characterized as being right brain "directed" societies. Think of mild and stable schizophrenia where the left "get the job done through logic" side listens to the right for guidance on day to day activities. Command and control dictates came from the elite ruling class. It was a time when our conscience did not just make us feel guilty, it was the puppet master.

Its simple - to the degree any society fosters right brain thinking it moves closer to a BC controlled society. The limit of this will be if some kind of drug is created that breaks down that door and totalitarian states require its use - to maintain your good "social" credit score for example.

Its possible that drug is already here and people are enjoying it in part because it breaks down that barrier - maybe ayahuasca/DMT?

You have all heard the phrase "listen to your inner voice".  Maybe one day it becomes a state propaganda message.

Here is an interesting connection between BC theory and religion. Perhaps the devil as a creation of Christianity and other religions arose when right brain control became an impediment in some warlike societies and the "voice" as devil was a devious way to distance the ruled from that voice.

The ancient inner voice is not the outer voice of reason.

Welcome... Beings of Light - The Rising Feminine Energy

Heady times ahead.


----------



## Whitewave (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: whitewaveDate: 2019-03-19 16:29:50Reaction Score: 0


Thanks for your explanation.


----------



## AgentOrange5 (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: AgentOrange5Date: 2019-04-04 14:32:56Reaction Score: 1




tupperaware said:


> Many like the Cretan state were heavily controlled/influenced by women. Freedom from wars, greed, alpha male dominance, football, Christianity/Islam, the stock market and biggest benefit of all - manspreading.


Why would women want to do away with religion? It's no secret that (at least in the US), church congregations have a higher percentage of female members than male. Many churches have been actively focusing on how to get more male members (with not a lot of success.) Surveys have also shown that women are more likely to be "serious" about Christianity then men (in terms of daily prayer, weekly services, etc.) Most churches are led by men, so I don't see women rejecting the "alpha male" either.

I suspect you have been listening to the MSM feminist ideas, which have little to do with what most women want.  Certainly, I think most people, men and women both, want freedom from wars and greed. As for the rest, I haven't heard any woman who wants to do away with any of that, or even complains about that, outside of paid propagandists.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Red BirdDate: 2019-04-04 15:01:39Reaction Score: 1


It’s now my belief all goes back to mystery schools which means Babylon and Nimrod and power over the earth as gods, ultimately. Look under every rock and there they are no matter what time period.  My interests are how, not who, and their motivations.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: tupperawareDate: 2019-04-04 15:48:37Reaction Score: 1




AgentOrange5 said:


> Why would women want to do away with religion? It's no secret that (at least in the US), church congregations have a higher percentage of female members than male. Many churches have been actively focusing on how to get more male members (with not a lot of success.) Surveys have also shown that women are more likely to be "serious" about Christianity then men (in terms of daily prayer, weekly services, etc.) Most churches are led by men, so I don't see women rejecting the "alpha male" either.
> 
> I suspect you have been listening to the MSM feminist ideas, which have little to do with what most women want.  Certainly, I think most people, men and women both, want freedom from wars and greed. As for the rest, I haven't heard any woman who wants to do away with any of that, or even complains about that, outside of paid propagandists.


I was mixing what life might have been like  thousands of years ago - pre Christianity, with modern life for a bit of humor.

Reading up about the huge imbalance towards women over men in church.  the problem could be that women are disinclined to accept peer level men - preferring their men as alpha and roosting at the top. Those at the top have been modifying their sermons unconsciously to promote that disparity which might be psychologically more beneficial in both directions.  Per below its interesting that 40% of breadwinners are now female and they don't seem to be interested in sermons on work. So the unstated theory is that men are interested in hearing about work at church but women are not. Interesting.

 "Steve Sonderman offers another possible reason for the decline in male church attendance in an article for Charisma News. Citing a survey from 2013, Sonderman says that 92% of men have never heard a sermon that discussed the topic of work, a subject that would hold meaning and relevance for most men. Although it’s true that the number of female primary breadwinners in America is on the rise, recent data from Pew Research indicates that sixty percent of breadwinners are still male, suggesting that the topic of work would be relevant to the majority of men. Sonderman’s point is that men don’t find sermons to be relevant to their lives. “Most men in our society today do not see the value of going to church,” he says. “It is not speaking their language, and it is not addressing the issues they face.” "

These articles are not going to connect the huge number of church closings across America to this exodus of men from church. Maybe too painful. Sounds like female dominance (60/40 or better) in church life as well as in almost all non technical college curriculum. Should be interesting times ahead since female dominance is growing in areas we have not seen before.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SonofaBushDate: 2019-05-14 04:16:52Reaction Score: 1




KorbenDallas said:


> Please, let us keep in mind the nature of this forum. Straight up politics we most definitely do not need. _i.e. good vs bad..._


Sounds like that is all I've heard and all from one angle.  We don't have communism, we have corporatism, the Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. I haven't read the article, but Wikiliar probably confuses capitalism and corporatism where the former I am sure rarely has ever existed in current and erased/rewritten human history and then only for a few generations before morphing into corporatism except perhaps in rare cases where communists manage to block this by countering the corporatist propaganda along the lines of Corporatist News Network and the far more extremist Faux News with there own propaganda. Yes the Intelligentsia paid themselves a bit more handsomely than the masses but it wasn't this lopsided.  The Soviet Union and China invested heavily in infrastructure making the rise of Chinese corporatism possible, unlike Trumty Dumpty which has only rewarded those who fired Americans making $20/hr with Chinamen making $0.20/hr and probably deducted plant and equipment at something like 40% with bringing those profits back at 25%, buy back stock, and cash out at inflated prices.

I find the attitudes of many of those on the forum toward Jesus' teachings and sink-or-swin cuthroat masculine competition that I doubt throughout history most human males measured up to (even Imperialist Corporatist Germany of the 1930s or the United States of SaudiIsraelia since 1996 when the Neocons took over the Clinton regime) to be quite disturbing.  No I am not a feminist which has nothing to do with gender equality, just plain pro-female as the name implies.  My bets are the more masculine women become the more masculine males have to be to get a mate.  I don't know what feminists mean by "toxic masculinity"  since the use of that term and the phrase "man up" is uttered by them in at least nine out of 10 cases.  Perhaps that is why Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua, are all on this misadministration's hit list and they can't what to get a regime to their liking any latter than yesterday in all four cases.

Even among lions, temperaments vary and all join in on the feast.  There has to be checks and balances.  The Wahhabist-Imperialist-Zionist three headed hydra of United States of SaudiIsraelia has none now that 1) arrests of whistleblowers and foreigners on Soviet-style charges are sent to kangaroo courts while war criminals get promoted (Haspel, Abrams, _ad nauseam_), 2) two forms of political correctness Zionist Neoconservatism and Social Justice Warfare clash, and 3) both mow down the alt-right and alt-left with plenty of additional help from Fakebook and Jewtube.

It was largely that I had a feeling something was not quite right as early as the late 1970s and am aware there is nothing true being parroted by the plastic robots reading a CIA script as far as current events go, so I am more skeptical of even ancient history than ever which lead me to Max Igan / The Crowhouse, Fomenko, and finally here (however long that lasts).  AFAIAC you do not have to go past what supposedly happened in the last 24 hours to get a glimpse of history in the process of revisionism by Faux News, MSDNC, etc.

Plenty of subjects for a few dozen threads, mostly stuff about messes so strange I don't really know where to even begin no doubt.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: VexmanDate: 2019-08-26 20:26:55Reaction Score: 7


Hi everybody, my first post here. I chose this thread to post after reading many other threads at SH. Before I touch on communism, my salutes to everybody participating on this forum, there is so much excellent stuff written here.

A short disclaimer : I was born and lived in a communist country for 14 years. While I didn't have any bad experience with the system, the trail of fascist rule and cult of personality in reducing the population to most benign individuals is as bloody as in any communist-led country of this world.

It wasn't that long ago, that I realized who was actually Karl Marx. I learned that initially from Miles Mathis, but what he claimed in his piece was such a paradigm-changing claim, that I had to double check his findings. Anybody can do it too, what you'll find is best written by Miles himself:
"_Geni scrubs Marx's genealogy before we can make a link to the Rothschilds, but Wikitree doesn't. Wikitree makes it easy to see that Karl Marx's grandmother Nanette Barent-Cohen was the first cousin of Henriette Barent-Cohen, who married Nathan Mayer Rothschild. Wow. This indicates it wasn't just the Phillips and Pressburgs bankrolling the Communism project, it was the even deeper pockets of Rothschild._" (excerpt from here).

That fact alone compromises Marx's figure more than anything else. How could one member of the richest families in the world write anything about the state of proletariat? Does it seem believable that he would offer any solution, which would in consequence endanger his family's hegemonic position? Did any member of the elite ever do anything good for the masses? There are of course many more questions like this that completely discredit Marx's writings. Above all, is there anybody alive who would accept the _dictatorship_ of the proletariat? Nobody sane would welcome any kind of dictatorship, ever. Right? But many people did, actually, and that's the biggest tragedy of the story about communism - there're so many awful events that happened to mostly innocent people, bad deeds done to people by their own kind. So many individuals proudly accepted the new ruling paradigm, which turned them into monsters of communist machinery. In proportions that make it almost unbelievable. For instance, in Slovenia there's approximately 2 million people, out of which 25% were directly or indirectly working with the local variation of CIA - the notorious UDBA, secret service similar to NKVD / KGB, STASI, etc.

Two main figures of communism, Lenin and Stalin, are as much compromised as Marx himself. It would be very naive to believe that anybody can become the head of any state, especially Russia, if not approved by PTB beforehand. There is no such case in this world for at least 100 years where it would've happened, correct me if I'm wrong. And it didn't happen in Russia, neither with Lenin nor Stalin. They even admit at Wikipedia that Stalin worked for Rothschilds, see here, paragraph #2. There is another piece by Miles Mathis on Stalin, if you want to read it yourself, you can find it here. It's a 27-page PDF, full of details how we were all duped to believe Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili was a patriotic Russian. Considering all the accessible sources scattered around the web, I dare to say I doubt we'll ever see a bigger anti-human persona in our lives.

Lenin is no less a fake and an actor, just as the other stooges Stalin or Leon Trotsky a.k.a. Lev Davidovich Bronstein. Just a few lines from another superb research piece on Lenin by Mathis:

"_His bio is mostly a blank until 1896, when he was charged with sedition. We are told he was traveling in Western Europe before that. Although we have seen he was a noble, he was charged with planning to overthrow the Tsar. For this, he was sentenced to three years in Siberia. But unlike others sentenced to Siberia, Lenin's trip looks more like a holiday. His mother and sisters accompanied him and he had his own private house. He corresponded with known revolutionaries and they even visited him there! He was allowed to go on excursions to swim and hunt ducks. No, really. I got this from mainstream sources. You can read it at Wiki. A year later Nadya joined him, married him, and lived with him. She brought her mother along._" (excerpt from here)

and than a few pages later, he writes :

"_Just to be sure you are getting it, what we are discovering is far more than a “Jewish-Bolshevik” conspiracy. That now looks like misdirection as well. Controlled opposition. They float that conspiracy, even writing a page for it at Wikipedia, and they do it to keep you from going where I am going. They imply that if you are really crazy, you might believe the Bolsheviks were bankrolled by wealthy Jews. But the evidence I am showing you leaves that weak theory far behind. It is not just the Bolsheviks who were Jewish, it was everyone in the Imperial government as well, going far back before the Russian Revolution. The Tsar just looks like another papermache front, and the Russian Revolution like a managed event. Like the French Revolution 125 years earlier, large parts of it were staged. Many key players were actors, hundreds of photos were faked, and many stories were manufactured from whole cloth. Parts of this history may have been inserted decades later, including some of the photos we have seen. 

And, as we saw in the French Revolution, where both Napoleon and Louis were crypto-Jews (Louis being descended in several lines from the Medicis), we see the same thing here, with the Romanovs looking like they are in on the scam. Tsar Nicholas could apparently read Yiddish, remember?_ "

My little country was littered with mass graves ever since the early days of June 1945. It would be lethal for health of any individual, brave enough to reveal the truth about those in days of communist regime. That fact alone may be hard to comprehend by itself. Freedom of speech in communism existed only to the point until one’s ideas would be noted as "contra revolutionary". It was in such moments that many of the victims were marked as "enemies of the state" and the witch-hunt began. In some cases years passed by before families of the victims were allowed to find out what happened to their beloved ones. And when they did, there was no institution to file a report to, no judicial or humanitarian "organ of the State" would be there to help you fight against inhumane treatment and extreme fascism around it. In fact, if you would be making too much fuss about it when addressing such rule of terror, the "darkness" would take those rare but brave individuals away and try to "correct their thoughts" about perceived reality. The people of those years in Slovenia refer to that era as "times when walls had ears".

It looks like PTB have made some nations suffer more than others, especially Slavic spoken people. Besides Chinese, and a few S.American countries, we were actually being reduced in great numbers for no particular reason except for being of obviously wrong genetic origin. After all these years of trying to figure this out, I wasn't really successful. I've absolutely no clue why this turned to be so. So I guess there's still much learn...


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SonofaBushDate: 2019-08-26 22:17:35Reaction Score: 2


One narrative that gets repeated a lot about Russia, and I'm hearing it recently about China, is that the communists were willing and able to do what others in these countries could not -- get infrastructure built and industrialization going.  Of course they used force, a lot of starving workers (Soviet Union at least) and a lot did not make it in the 1930s.  In the case of China there was periodic starvation anyway.  In much of China I hear the easily go without up to three years in a row without rain, so with adequate infrastructure excess food can be transported where it was needed.  This really pokes some holes in the official corporatist narrative balloons.

It looks like the plan was to industrialize and be relatively fair to the 90% when everyone was poor, then switch to corporatism and let the top 1% plunder.  The PTSNB did not allow communism in North America, so we instead had what I would call "corporatism with a human face" and the process took longer while despite being more fair than in 2019 (at least the 1930s through the 1980s) still kept skimming a good bit of the cream off the top periodically.

In other words, communism and 1950s-60s style liberalism is only useful in order to create the conditions where there is some real productive capacity to plunder through privateering schemes later.

In fact (and hopefully I start a thread on this soon) I am beginning to believe that elites are committing deliberate sabotage.  I can provide plenty of evidence from all sorts of angles and connect dots you never realized where actually "highly likely" connected as far as the current and recent events are concerned.  As for whether this has happened before, keeps happening about every two centuries or so, whether this is the history that is being covered up, and whether evidence for what I suspect can be shown that are more directly related to the forum are other more difficult matters.  I still think using what is going on currently and recently may be based on a template that has been used numerous times in the past so it would be useful as something that we can compare out of place, missing, and reinterpretable evidence to.  Unfortunately, this is probably extremely difficult even if it can lead anywhere.

For example, perhaps lack of sewage systems and toilets until the late 1800s in Chicago is no accident or mere stupidity.  Perhaps it is engineered mayhem to spread disease for whatever reason.  If Tartaria lacked proper sanitation, perhaps it lead to its engineered??? downfall.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SearchingDate: 2019-08-26 22:30:33Reaction Score: 8


Communism, Capitalism, Socialism.... they are only concepts, ideals. Greed always rises to the top and takes over. In theory, all types of government-run societies work, but the age-old problem always comes in to play. Some opportunist will twist the system to his advantage, and whether a nation is built upon communism or capitalism, the end is always the same. A greedy few end up with everything, leaving the masses with nothing. It's all disguised slavery.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: ObertrynDate: 2019-08-27 01:30:23Reaction Score: 1


It's worth noting that the Russian brand of communism went through about 10 or 12 different revisions in the first few years of its inception alone. For example, you will rarely hear that Lenin was one of the main reasons for the Russian Civil War and the bloodbath that followed. Many of his comrades weren't really all that keen on killing their fellow countrymen when most Russians were already united in their hatred for the Russian Tsar's abominable rule. It started out fairly, uh, "peaceful" as far as we can claim that and then just got progressively more violent as the more sane voices got drowned out in favor of those who really wanted to slice up some motherf***ers. Tale as old as time, really.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: RaviolliDate: 2019-08-27 07:08:45Reaction Score: 7


Communism was created as an intelligence project and to defeat aristocrats so that industrialists had all / most of the control

http://mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf (should work now)

In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution

Hegelian Dialect


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: inquisitorDate: 2019-08-27 07:25:31Reaction Score: 1


^^ That link doesn't work, sadly. I tried clicking on it twice.

We have ideologies like (Marxian) communism and capitalism because they are products of the industrial system. It is because of the technologies that come from industrialism the principles of these ideologies are even remotely possible. Before that it was something akin to distributism, where land was owned by its individual workers. Changing circumstances caused the small land owners to rely on local lords for other services, including defense. Of course the local lord declared his fealty to the chief noble, and he to the king. It is interesting that someone earlier (UnusualBean) pointed out the Emperor's role in an economy as possibly being a conduit in a 'socialist' system, one who imparts of sorts. I have never considered it that way, and it might have some merit apart from the traditional etymology of commanding. Critiques of pre-industrial economics tend to agree that the economy before industrialism was more equitable and level compared to the monster of a global market economy we have today, the Emperor acted as a check on the powers of the nobles. Our view of monarchy is really warped by the idea of the absolute monarch of more recent times, but monarchs were originally heavily reliant upon the support of their nobles but often nobles had their own ambitions which if kept unchecked, could impact the general welfare. The case of King John and the English nobles is a salient one. The nobles were his elite, and when he affirmed the rights of privileges in writ, it was still not good enough, and thus the First Baron's War.

Revolutions are an instrument of the elite. The state of today's world, even in the cushy west, is not without merits for radical political change. But no one seems to be able to do it. Why? Most people will say it's because people are glued to their smartphones, or people are more worried about keeping a roof over their head or food on the table. These people have far less to lose than those who are calling the shots. Consider the fact that the American revolution would not have been possible without support from the colonial elite. They may not have boasted a peerage, but they played the same role that the titular nobility did in Britain. Some of the biggest supporters of the French revolution were aristocrats, such as the Marquises de Sade and de Lafayette. The former eventually found himself at the mercy of the revolutionaries, whilst the latter wound up in America. I don't know if this was true in Russia, but if I recall correctly, there were certain titled aristocrats in Germany flirting with socialist and fascist ideology.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: jd755Date: 2019-08-27 07:25:57Reaction Score: 1


According to the 1898 National Encylopedia I was reading yesterday communist was the label first applied to the members of the Paris Commune. I'll copy the actual wording out and add it in later on.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: NooptyDate: 2020-03-23 07:21:36Reaction Score: 0




SonofaBush said:


> One narrative that gets repeated a lot about Russia, and I'm hearing it recently about China, is that the communists were willing and able to do what others in these countries could not -- get infrastructure built and industrialization going.  Of course they used force, a lot of starving workers (Soviet Union at least) and a lot did not make it in the 1930s.  In the case of China there was periodic starvation anyway.  In much of China I hear the easily go without up to three years in a row without rain, so with adequate infrastructure excess food can be transported where it was needed.  This really pokes some holes in the official corporatist narrative balloons.
> 
> It looks like the plan was to industrialize and be relatively fair to the 90% when everyone was poor, then switch to corporatism and let the top 1% plunder.  The PTSNB did not allow communism in North America, so we instead had what I would call "corporatism with a human face" and the process took longer while despite being more fair than in 2019 (at least the 1930s through the 1980s) still kept skimming a good bit of the cream off the top periodically.
> 
> ...


Right. Essentially history is just one morphing system made up false ideologies that "compete" when its actually a long term multiple century plan where this made up money system is instituted by an Empire and mobilizes people to produce, then the "wealth" is all extracted to the top, and then "socialism" type ideas are used to dismantle the system.

I do not know if this cycle has been used before, I believe the main one used previously was religion, specifically protestant vs catholic.


----------



## feralimal (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: FeralimalDate: 2020-03-23 08:46:09Reaction Score: 2


Tim Ozman of the infinite plane society, calls the environmental/green movement, as we have it - Watermelon Marxism, as its green on the outside but red on the inside.  I think this right - its all about how we need to pay out and communise our existence, under the guise of doing right by the world.

I actually like some green principles, and definitely think we should take care of the world, BTW.  I'm not bought into the idea of feeling guilt and responsibility for simply existing though, even if the MSM says I should!  And I don't see humanity as a virus that needs to be controlled via socialistic, communitarian means, that hands more power to TPTB!


----------



## Ilmarinen (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: IlmarinenDate: 2020-04-07 18:07:18Reaction Score: 2




humanoidlord said:


> socialism worked in the previous civlization, but it obviously doesn't work in the modern civlization, where entire countries go apeshit over oil


If socialism, communism or fascism (or any other name of the same phenomenon) witch are all a form of Altruism worked, they would not have disappeared. Reality is that they all work for a time being until they self destruct, which is just logical outcome of a system of sacrifice. Only rational egoism and objectivism as Ayn Rand described them provide a sustainable freedom of pursuing ones life goals but this type of society cant organise for war so its doomed to fail as well since not all tribes are in equal timeline of development or evolution. As O. Spengler said: "Every action alters the soul of the doer."   ..so it goes on and on.


----------



## EUAFU (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: EUAFUDate: 2020-04-07 18:18:55Reaction Score: 1


If you want to know how communism was implemented, just follow the capitalists who financed the revolutionaries in Russia.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: SunBardDate: 2020-04-07 18:40:56Reaction Score: 0




Onijunbei said:


> Whatever it's alleged to be... Communism, in the 20th century, was nothing short of destructive.  It worked as a dialectic in the grand strategy of divide and conquer. It sets up war after war after war.. With the destruction of well over 100 million people.
> Let's list the main players.
> 
> Stalin: Union striker from Georgia Russia who managed to effectively shut down munition operations while Russia was fighting Japan.
> ...


May I just note both Hitler and Stalin were Socialists? What if they were working together to wipe out a particular group? Did the Holocaust and Holodomor actually wipe out genetic descendants of Tartaria?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: captrackhamDate: 2020-04-07 19:24:49Reaction Score: 2


I'm new at commenting here, but if I might offer my own thoughts on the subject - 

I think that communism and capitalism are from the same tree.  They're different methods of going about a highly materialistic world view - it's utilizing scarcity/ supply/ demand.. and even faking these factors/ muscling others out to enhance certain group's own position.  

I would venture to say even the distributionism - which is fascinating, as it somewhat aligns to my way of thinking in terms of collaboration with all classes, that system sort of pushes people into the collaboration more - in theory, and the idea of breaking off with any kind of usury banking system is a plus - yet it is also likely from the same tree.  

A lot of these concepts are near impossible to put into practice anymore because of what i suspect is a devolved world view.  Even your most intelligent person has been narrowed into an inferior mindset, to the point of which, it seems when the arguments come to a hilt - there's always the issue of how it's enforced, how would any system come to power/ maintain that power/ and destabilize any threat to that power.  

The twist is, the removal of any kind of evolved thought process is really expedited through the necessity of any of these economic systems to sustain our world view.  It's extremely hard for anyone to imagine any other way ; out of our devolved outlooks.  This is why these are all 'good theories' but when put into practice there's always so much disagreeance.  

It doesn't address issues over ultimately who still winds up holding the titles to land, or the freedom to operate businesses as you please (even in the so called capitalist American system, children can't even set up a lemonade stand without being hassled by a drive by police officer demanding a permit from the parents), there's no incentive for people to start up their own industry which I think is a crime done to everyone.  There's a network that strengthens the businesses that operate unfettered - how are these networks formed?  despite any system, even communism develops it's own forms of networking which allows for authorized sellers only.  I imagine distributionism would be the same way.  

The tree sprouts from a modern world view.  The modern world view change ever so slightly based on the cultures that adopt different systems - but they all seem to be the same.  I don't very much think that communist Russia was very much different from capitalist America back in the 20th century.  In fact, this day in age, I'd venture to say that communist China is about the most capitalist of any so called nation.  They manufacture everything, and they enjoy a lot of benefits from it.  but like in so called capitalist America, there's a certain number of those who benefit from robust multi faceted billion dollar industry.  There's a definite disparity from commoners, who are taxed highly at the notion of trying to have a go at it on their own, they're not in the club so to speak.  

What possible system can anyone dream up that would give every single person the chance, dignity and full capability to just up and start up whatever they like, sell whatever they want, set up shop wherever, do business with whoever and not be taxed to the eyeballs.  

I dare to say that it's impossible to think of any other system that isn't inferior like the other systems, and they are built to make sure the same problems keep arising.  They all seem to cause the same problems and only certain people benefit from the better parts of it.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: zatrixDate: 2020-04-08 18:02:48Reaction Score: 1



For 11 Years, the Soviet Union Had No Weekends
Didn't know this, will need to ask my parents about it.


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Son of a BorDate: 2020-04-09 00:41:19Reaction Score: 0




Onijunbei said:


> Mao: son of a wealthy farmer who used his father's capitalism to attend Peking University in China and Yale University in America. Yes... He attended Yale.. Home to Skull and Bones



I've read many biographies of Mao and have studied the Chinese 20th century a lot, but I've never heard that Mao went to Yale, for any purpose whatsoever. The only trip abroad that I recall was his journey to the Soviet Union after the Communist victory in China in 1949. Stalin treated him pretty poorly. Other Communist leaders, such as Deng Xiao-Ping certainly spent time abroad prior to the revolution. In particular, Deng studied in France.

Do you have evidence that I've over looked?


----------



## Archive (Apr 26, 2021)

> Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.Username: Red BirdDate: 2020-04-09 01:01:28Reaction Score: 1




captrackham said:


> I'm new at commenting here, but if I might offer my own thoughts on the subject -
> 
> I think that communism and capitalism are from the same tree.  They're different methods of going about a highly materialistic world view - it's utilizing scarcity/ supply/ demand.. and even faking these factors/ muscling others out to enhance certain group's own position.
> 
> ...


Human institutions always devolve unfortunately. That is one reason I’m a ChristIan- very logical, without devaluing humans, themselves.


----------

