This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Human Cost Of Socialism In Power
Submitted by Richard Ebeling via EpicTimes.com,
The attempt to establish a comprehensive socialist system in many parts of the world over the last one hundred years has been one of the cruelest and most brutal episodes in human history.
Some historians have estimated that as many as 200 million people may have died as part of the dream of creating a collectivist “Paradise on Earth.” Making a better “new world” was taken to mean the extermination, the liquidation, the mass murder of all those that the socialist revolutionary leaders declared to be “class enemies,” including the families, the children of “enemies of the people.”
The Bloody Road to Making a New Socialist Man
We will soon be marking the hundredth anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia (November 1917) under the Marxist revolutionary leader, Vladimir Lenin. In Soviet Russia, alone, it has been calculated by Russian and Western historians who had limited access to the secret archives of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the KGB (the Soviet secret police) in the 1990s, that around 68 million innocent, unarmed men, women and children were killed over the nearly 75 years of communist rule in the Soviet Union.
The communist revolutionaries in Russia proudly declared their goal to be destruction and death to everything that existed before the revolution, so as to have a clean slate upon which to mold the new socialist man.
The evil of the Soviet system is that it was not cruelty for cruelty’s sake. Rather it was cruelty for a purpose – to make a new Soviet man and a new Soviet society. This required the destruction of everything that had gone before; and it also entailed the forced creation of a new civilization, as conjured up in the minds of those who had appointed themselves the creators of this brave new world.
In the minds of those like Felix Dzerzhinsky, Lenin’s close associate and founder of the Soviet secret police, violence was an act of love. So much did they love the vision of a blissful communist future to come that they were willing to sacrifice all of the traditional conceptions of humanity and morality to bring the utopia to fruition.
Thus, in a publication issued in 1919 by the newly formed Soviet secret police, the Cheka (later the NKVD and then the KGB), it was proclaimed:
“We reject the old systems of morality and ‘humanity’ invented by the bourgeoisie to oppress and exploit the ‘lower classes.’ Our morality has no precedent, and our humanity is absolute because it rests on a new ideal. Our aim is to destroy all forms of oppression and violence. To so, everything is permitted, for we are the first to raise the sword not to oppress races and reduce them to slavery, but to liberate humanity from its shackles . . .
“Blood? Let blood flow like water! Let bloodstain forever the black pirate’s flag flown by the bourgeoisie, and let our flag be blood-red forever! For only through the death of the old world can we liberate ourselves from the return of those jackals.”
Death and Torture as Tools of Winning Socialism
The famous sociologist, Pitirim A. Sorokin was a young professor in Petrograd (later Leningrad, and now St Petersburg) in 1920 as the Russian Civil War that firmly established communist rule in Russia was coming to its end. He kept an account of daily life during those years, which he published many years later under the title, Leaves from a Russian Diary – and Thirty Years After (1950).
Here is one of his entries from 1920:
“The machine of the Red Terror works incessantly. Every day and every night, in Petrograd, Moscow, and all over the country the mountain of the dead grows higher . . . Everywhere people are shot, mutilated, wiped out of existence . . .
“Every night we hear the rattle of trucks bearing new victims. Every night we hear the rifle fire of executions, and often some of us hear from the ditches, where the bodies are flung, faint groans and cries of those who did not die at once under the guns. People living near these places begin to move away. They cannot sleep . . .
“Getting up in the morning, no man or woman knows whether he will be free that night. Leaving one’s home, one never knows whether he will return. Sometime a neighborhood is surrounded and everyone caught out of his house without a certificate is arrested . . . Life these days depends entirely on luck.”
This murderous madness never ended. In the 1930s, during the time of the Great Purges instituted by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin to wipe out all “enemies of the revolution” through mass executions, there were also sent millions to the GULAG prisons that stretched across all of the Soviet Union to be worked to death as slave labor to “build socialism.”
Before being sent to their death or to the forced labor camps, tens of thousands would be interrogated and cruelly tortured to get confessions out of people about non-existent crimes, imaginary anti-Soviet conspiracies, and false accusations against others.
Stalin personally sent instructions to the Soviet secret police that stated that in obtaining confessions from the accused, “the NKVD was given permission by the Central Committee [of the Communist Party] to use physical influence … as a completely correct and expedient method” of interrogation.
When Stalin was told that this method was bringing forth the desired results, he told the NKVD interrogators, “Give them the works until they come crawling to you on their bellies with confessions in their teeth.” Then, in another purge, this one after World War II, Stalin simplified the instructions even more: “Beat, beat and, once again, beat.”
Thousands of the victims wrote letters to Stalin from their exile and hardships in the labor camps, all of them persuaded that it had all been a terrible mistake. If only Comrade Stalin knew, he would set it all right and they would be freed and restored as good, loyal Soviet citizens ready to once again work to “build socialism.”
Stalin’s Personal Hand in Building Socialism Through Blood
But Stalin knew. He personally signed off on tens of thousands of death warrants and orders for tens of thousands more to be sent to their horrifying fate in the GULAG camps.
Domitri Volkogonov, a Soviet general-turned-historian, gained access to many of the closed Soviet archives in the 1980s, and wrote a biography of Stalin, entitled, Triumph and Tragedy (1991), meaning Stalin’s “triumph” to power and the resulting “tragedy” for the Soviet people. Volkogonov told a Western correspondent at the time:
“I would come home from working in Stalin’s archives, and I would be deeply shaken. I remember coming home after reading through the day of December 12, 1938. He signed thirty lists of death sentences that day, altogether about five thousand people, including many he personally knew, his friends . . .
“This is not what shook me. It turned out that, having signed these documents, he went to his personal theater very late that night and watched two movies, including “Happy Guys,” a popular comedy of the time. I simply could not understand how, after deciding the fate of several thousand lives, he could watch such a movie.
“But I was beginning to realize that morality plays no role for dictators. That’s when I understood why my father was shot, why my mother died in exile, why millions of people died.”
Soviet central planning even had quotas for the number of such enemies of the people to be killed in each region of the Soviet Union as well as the required numbers to be rounded up to be sent to work in the labor camps in the frigid waste lands of the Siberia and the Arctic Circle or the scorching deserts of Soviet Central Asia.
A Russian lawyer who had access to some of the formerly closed Soviet archives of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1990s told at the time:
“Recently I read a Central Committee document from 1937 that said the Voronezh secret police, according to the ‘regional plan,’ repressed in the ‘first category,’ nine thousand people – which means these people were executed. And for no reason, of course.
“Twenty-nine thousand were repressed in the ‘second category – meaning they were sent to labor camps. The local first secretary [of the Communist Party], however, writes that there are still more Trotskyites and kulaks who remain ‘unrepressed.’
“He is saying that the plan was fulfilled but the plan was not enough! And so he asked that it be increased by eight thousand. Stalin writes back, ‘No increase to nine thousand!’ The sickness of it. Its’ as if they were playing poking [and upping the ante in tragic human lives].”
The Victims of Socialism Literally Reduced to Burnt Ash
In the last years of the Soviet Union, a Russian historian took The New York Times correspondent, David Remnick, to the Donskoi Monastery in Moscow, which in the 1930s was used as a burial ground for the thousands regularly killed on Stalin’s orders in the capital of the Red Empire. In his book, Lenin’s Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire (1993), Remnick told what the Russian historian explained:
“See this gate? . . . Well, every night trucks stacked with bodies came back here and dumped them in a heap. They’d already been shot in the back of the head – you bleed less that way . . . They stacked the bodies in old wooden ammunition crates.
“The workers stoked up the underground ovens – right in through the doors – to about twelve thousand degrees centigrade. To make things nice and official they even had professional witnesses who counter-signed the various documents.
“When the bodies were burned they were reduced to ash and some chips of bone, maybe some teeth. They then buried the ashes in a pit . . . When the purges [of the 1930s] were at their peak . . . the furnaces worked all night and the domes of the churches were covered with ash. There was a fine dust of ash on the snow.”
The Kalitnikovsky Cemetery in Moscow also served as dumping ground for thousands of tortured and executed bodies in the 1930s. That same Russian historian told David Remnick:
“In the purges, every dog in town came to this place. That smell you smell now was three times as bad; blood was in the air. People would lean out of their windows and puke all night and the dogs howled until dawn. Sometimes they’d find a dog with an arm or a leg walking through the graveyard.”
Enemies of Socialism Sent to Torture in the Mental Ward
The nightmare of the socialist experiment, however, did not end with Stalin’s death in 1953. Its form merely changed in later decades. As head of the KGB in the 1970s, Yuri Andropov (who later was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union after Leonid Brezhnev’s death in 1982), accepted a new theory in Soviet psychiatry that said that opposition to the socialist regime was a sign of mental illness.
Why? Because only the mentally disturbed would resist the logic and the truth of Marxian dialectical determinism and its “proof” that socialism and communism were the highest and most humane stage of social development. Those who criticized the system, or who wanted to reform or overthrow the Soviet socialist regime were mentally sick and required psychiatric treatment.
In his book, Russia and the Russians (1984), former Moscow correspondent for the Washington Post, Kevin Klose, told the story of Alexei Nikitin, a coal mine worker who complained to the Soviet government about the safety and health environment in the mines of the Soviet Union. He was arrested, tried, and found guilty of subversion and committed to a Soviet mental institution.
Various drugs were proscribed as treatment to bring him to his proper socialist senses. Explained Kevin Klose:
“Of all the drugs administered [at the mental institution] to impose discipline, sulfazine stood at the pinnacle of pain . . . ‘People injected with sulfazine were groaning, sighing with pain, cursing the psychiatrists and Soviet power, cursing with everything in their hearts,’ Alexei told us. ‘The people go into horrible convulsions and get completely disoriented. The body temperature rises to 40 degrees centigrade [104 degrees Fahrenheit] almost instantly, and the pain is so intense they cannot move from their beds for three days. Sulfazine is simply a way to destroy a man completely. If they torture you and break your arms, there is a certain specific pain and you somehow can stand it. But sulfazine is like a drill boring into your body that gets worse and worse until it’s more than you can stand. It’s impossible to endure. It is worse than torture, because, sometimes, torture may end. But this kind of torture man continue for years.’
“Sulfazine normally was ‘prescribed’ in a ‘course’ of injections of increasing strength over a period that might last up to two months . . . The doctors had many other drugs with which to control and punish. Most of them eventually were used on Alexei . . . At the end of two months, Nikitin was taken off sulfazine but regular doses of . . . other disorienting drugs continued the entire time he was imprisoned.”
The significance of these accounts is not their uniqueness but, rather, their monotonous repetition in every country in which socialism was imposed upon a society. In country after country, death, destruction, and privation followed in the wake of socialism’s triumph. Socialism’s history is an unending story of crushing tyranny and oceans of blood.
Socialism as the Ideology of Death and Destruction
As the Soviet mathematician and dissident, Igor Shafarevich, who spent many years in the GULAG slave labor camps for his opposition to the communist regime, said in his book, The Socialist Phenomenon (1980):
“Most socialist doctrines and movements are literally saturated with the mood of death, catastrophe, and destruction . . . One could regard the death of mankind as the final result to which the development of socialism leads.”
That twentieth century socialism would lead to nothing but this outcome was understood at the time of the Bolshevik victory in Russia. It was clearly expressed by the greatest intellectual opponent of socialism during the last one hundred years, the Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises.
Near the end of his famous 1922 treatise, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Mises warned that:
“Socialism is not in the least what is pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build, it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created . . . Each step leading towards Socialism must exhaust itself in the destruction of what already exists.”
When voices are raised today calling for socialism in America, including by those attempting to win a major party candidacy to run for the presidency of the United States, it is important – no, it is crucial – that the history and reality of socialism-in-practice in those parts of the world in which it was most thoroughly imposed and implemented be remembered and fully understood. If we do not, well, history has its own ways of repeating itself.
»
- 78456 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The former United States. Has already run out of other people's money. Kaboom
Socialism is GREAT as long as you are part of the ruling class. If you're not, you have a very hard life ahead of you (see the poverty and people living in squalor in any Socialist/Communist/Marxist country for proof). Even if you are life will be hard having to brown-nose the Socialist above you or be thrown out.
Psychopaths will take any 'ism' you got. Between political/economic systems and religion, they have all the tools they ever need. I agree that socialism has certain characteristics that they find convenient to exploit, but no 'ism' on earth is immune from being used by psychopaths for their own purposes.
The 'ism' isn't the problem. The inability for common people to recognize psychopaths and feed them into woodchippers on sight is the real problem. I suppose the psychopaths would eventually exploit woodchipperism to their benefit as well though. [sigh...]
Unrestrained Capitalism sucks too. As long as humans live in a haze of perpetual unconsciousness we will fuck everything up over and over again until there is nothing left to fight over. The illusory ego of a fancy primate is destroying the world.
We will not wake up to this fact without a jarring, shocking, and ego crushing worldwide scenario. Personally I think some of these secret societies understand this and are "helping" this scenario along.
yeah, all those goods at ever lower prices. those goddam rising living standards. yes, unrestrained capitalism really sucks...
read "socialism" by von Mises and maybe you won't die stupid
Unrestrained Capitalism is destroying the world you dumbfuck. Allow corporations and greedy psychopaths free reign via complicit government and watch your "living standards" evaporate as all wealth is transferred to a single ruling class. Sound familiar?
Hey at least we get cheaper iShit right?
Crony Capitalism is destroying the World.
Fixed it for you..... although I think the point is probably lost on you
My apologies if i was unclear, but yes, i meant crony capitalism. Capitalism when not restrained with laws or honest officials to enforce them will always devolve into crony capitalism.
This is where we find ourselves today.
Crony socialism ;-)
WOW.
When I saw the title of this article I thought for sure there would be the normal ZH night shift of liberal / socialist / commie effeminate bitches lamenting.
How utterly refreshing.
"Thou shalt not steal." Even God recognizes private property, which is why He is so hated by socialists.
Jesus says to the Church of Pergamos, "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate."
The word "nicolaitanes" means literally, "Victory (nikos) to the people (laos)". This doctrine of people victory, or "people power" is the doctrine of socialism. It is a fasle doctrine, a sham, and leads, as the article says, only to destruction.
We're so screwed.
PS ~ Many of those German WW2 execution photos were faked. Safely taken on RAF bases in England and distributed as propaganda. Nobody really wants their photo taken shooting people, just in case you do lose teh war....
unfettered pure market capitalism is a fantasy of jenna ball sucking proportions and all the FOOLS who espouse her greatness are the pud pullers of their own fantasy. Oligarchs make them their bitchez and laugh as the prolls drink from the drippings from their own ballz.
drink up FOOLS!!
It depends on what you call socialism. Sweeden is a socialist government. They seem to live pretty well over there. And nobody is getting shot.
That is...unless you think rape is a problem.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
Europeans need to jettison their ridiculous gun laws immediately and install zero tolerance rape laws, you rape you die. Because when ISIS meets coddling socialist minds, it will create a tsunami of death for white Europe.
The article is a major reason to cherish our 2nd Amendment, perhaps more then any other.
THE STATE LOVES YOU BITCHEZ!
DEMOCIDE: DEATH BY GOVERNMENT
1900 THROUGH 1999: 262,000,000 KILLED BY ACTIONS OF GOVERNMENT
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
So why does anyone vote for these homicidal, sociopaths over and over again?????????
The sheeple need to wake the fuck up or the 21st century will have even more people wiped out than the 20th century did.
From what I've read Sweden has very "broad" Sexual laws so it would be worth investigating what constitutes rape in Sweden before jumping to any extreme conclusions.
Australia, New Zealand, Norway. Look at the top of the list in health care, GDP per capita, Education, holidays... 'nuff said. (Socialism, just like so called 'capitalism' that is really crony capitalism can be fucked up. It doesn't mean it's not a good system at heart.)
It's also interesting that with all the bagging of 'socialist' economies (oooohhh scary scary) most of the fucken world with shitloads of money wants to escape to one.
There is only one good thing about Australia. The country is gorgeous. The people generally suck.
Not sure what thinks having all of those "refugees" there is a good idea, but the crime rate isn't talked about because it would be "politically incorrect". Most of the more disciplined That government is just as proxy-ed and degenerate as our own. Probably more so, since no one thinks their politicians are corrupt over there. Don't even get me started on the fake aboriginals. It was the first place in the world where I have seen that being a part of a huge vagrant community is a good thing.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/109225/curse-white-aborigine-daniel-gree...
cc, those are not fascist police states. I am already worried about the trouble in SA since some have a history of brutal police states such as Chile and Argentina, which are both great places right now but can tumble into chaos due to economic failure + the elites using police force. An unarmed citizenry is very vulnerable, whether it's Cambodia or Chile.
Hey king's whore - what the hell is that stupid link? To your own blog where you ramble on about your bucket of chicken and favorite beer?
Seriously, just go away if you're going to waste people's time with your fake links.
Now for some worthwhile commentary: * HEADS-UP on SCANDANAVIAN SOCIALISM
Anyone need only spend a single day in Sweden, Denmark, Norway or Finland to realize how socialism might reasonably work there but so obviously wouldn't in a country like the USA. The Scandanavian countries have experienced growth rates of immigrants but are still mostly (80%+) homogenous countries. Guess what that means? That the majority of the population has VERY similar values which include participating and not bilking the system, largely.
The USA is so far from that, it's not even worth discussing. Except in the very beginning, we've never been homogenous. I like the crazy melting-pot of the USA but am very clear that we do not have shared values. What I observed in Scandanavia, and from conversations with locals, convinced me that a purely socialist system would never work here. (Btw, I do get that we're moving rapidly in that direction anyhow, we're just not identifiying it as such).
Please everyone, stop touting the Scandanavian model as something doable in the USA. Go visit there, then get back to me.
Worth a visit anyhow, btw.....nice countries!
The small country of Sweden has been taking in more than 100,000 Muslims every year. There is no chance that the country can integrate so many Islamic refugees and immigrants. Swedish Police have pointed out 55 Muslim-dominated areas where “criminals” have taken control of the area and are no go zones.
The right-wing nationalist Sweden Democrats staged a gay pride march featuring men kissing each other through areas of northern Stockholm where Muslims make up a majority of the population – 75 per cent, according to some accounts. The Sweden Democrats think they’ve struck gold with marches designed to provoke Muslims into throwing stones at homosexuals and force Left-wing gays into defending their oppressors.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/swedish-nationalists-pl...
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/10/sweden-police-point-out-55-muslim-domi...
"Jesus says to the Church of Pergamos, "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate."
The word "nicolaitanes" means literally, "Victory (nikos) to the people (laos)". This doctrine of people victory, or "people power" is the doctrine of socialism. It is a fasle doctrine, a sham, and leads, as the article says, only to destruction."
Quoting the bible against socialism?!?!?
The bible is a large collection of passages which are sufficiently vague that they can be used to support any proposition. I could find a hundred passages in support of socialism:
Acts 2: 44-45
And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.
James 5: 1-6
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. ...
Let's have a debate about socialism, but lets try to keeps the inane ramblings of bronze-age sheep herders out of it.
"Let's have a debate about socialism, but lets try to keeps the inane ramblings of bronze-age sheep herders out of it"
But you just did to prove a "point" and then forbid anyone else?
Tough to do when this country is predominatly christian albeit watered down and misunderstood, to wit...you:
Acts 2: 44-45
"And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need."
and this was voluntary because as it says in Acts 9: "And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord...it was hard bigotry as opposed to the soft bigotry espoused currently.
Christians were considered a cult and a threat to the power structure and rome was fine with the jews boot stomping it into the ground, (sound familiar) Judaism was The Government sponsored religion of the time in that area.
Commerce for christians was difficult thus they voluntarily acted accordingly.
as for being wealthy? God never forbids wealth in fact promises a abundant life (John 10:10) as long as it does not become a god in of itself. There were many a wealthy recorded as examples of rich men who were devout and lived Godly lifes including the man who bought the seplucher and linen for Christ burial.
"The bible is a large collection of passages which are sufficiently vague that they can be used to support any proposition."
Wrong, wrong and wrong
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (understood).
You are incomplete thus you cannot understand and won't understand, really quite simple. To you it is a hodge podge of verses.
2 Tim 2:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, (Greek: Theo Pnuestos =God Breathed) and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Get it? Nope, thats right you can't.... yet?
You're having trouble, so I will type slowly.
"But you just did [use a bible passage] to prove a "point" and then forbid anyone else?"
No, I did not. Read the post again. My point was that there a passages in the bible that tend to support socialism, and passages that tend to refute it. There are passages that tend to support the accumulation of wealth, and those that argue against it. That is the problem with using the bible as a rhetorical devise - it means whatever you want it to mean.
Those who seek to support a given position will find a passage to support it, whatever that position is. Those who seek to refute that same position will also find a helpful passage. It kinda like language - you can use it to say anything you want.
This should be automagically appended to any comment where the use of a bible reference is detected. LOL.
Wrong. Most every bible scholar, including people who have actually studied the group in question have rendered Nicolaitans as Victor (or Conquerer) over the Laity. This was the earliest appearance of a Christian priesthood, or spiritual hierarchy.
But hey, don't take my word for it. I first learned it from Chuck Smith.
How utterly depressing.
> How utterly refreshing.
How exquisitely brainwashing
ZionHedge deserves a standing ovation for this extraordinary act of sheeple's brain wiring. Just can't find a better example of programming already confused Pavlov's dogs into shitting their white collars on hearing the very word "Socialism".
There is nothing remotely refreshing though, since the old beaten up method of ZOG propaganda is used:
a) Discredit any system alternative to the systemic parasitism (a.k.a "Kapitalism"/"Kommunism" etc.)
b) Present "Kapitalism" (i.e. prosperity of the chosen ones and suffering for the rest) as the only alternative and drive the livestock back into the stables -- since the Greatest Deperssion is coming upon us and there is no much fodder left
Like the Jewish Revolution in Russia, Gulag was a creation of ZOG and had nothing to do with "Socialism"
1) Texe Marrs, Jewish Killers massacre 66 million in Soviet Gulag
http://www.texemarrs.com/062004/soviet_gulag.htm
[...]
Karl Marx, the Jewish radical who inspired Lenin and Trotsky with his communist theories, was secretly a High Priest of Satan (see Richard Wurmbrand's book, Marx and Satan). Shown here in his official portrait, Marx is giving an enigmatic Masonic hand sign (see Richardson's Monitor of Freemasonry, p. 74).
[...]
Four Gulag camp commandants. Note that all four are giving the secret sign of Jewish Freemasonry, just as did Communism's founding father, the Jewish Mason, Karl Marx.
[...]
This official postcard, widely circulated by the Communist government in Russia following the Jewish Bolshevik takeover, is entitled "Leaders of the Proletarian Revolution." The postcard reveals the Jewishness of these original leaders of the Communist Party. All six shown, including Lenin and Trotsky, are Jews!
2) And here are Gulag's Founding Fathers/Rabbis
Matvei Berman: a founder of GULAG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matvei_Berman
Naftaly Frenkel chief of works at Belomor Canal
Lazar Kaganovich responsible for implementation of Holodomor in Ukraine.
Yakov (Jacob) Rapoport - deputy chief of Gulag
Genrikh Yagoda (born Yenokh Gershevich Iyeguda) was a chairman of NKVD, there is a longer list, can be continued.
Up until mid 1930s NKVD and Gulag management was over-represented by the Jews. Stalin did execute most of them during the "purges", that's the only reason he is still hated by ZOG (as he put himself, "I know that after my death a pile of rubbish will be heaped on my grave, but the wind of History will sooner or later sweep it away without mercy.")
3) Texe Marrs, GULAG USA-CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN AMERICA PART 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suF-QO7jWdI
If ZOG is a boogeyman, then Socialism is boogeyman's boogeyman.
upvote for the links...the picture, like a B&W photo in the developing bath, is becoming more and more defined...the picture is one of many, in the folio of crime scenes.
> the picture is one of many, in the folio of crime scenes
... of ZOG and their puppets against the rest of humanity
He left out the nasty part about the whole Bolshevik Revolution being funded by Wall Street.
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik...
... and that creator of the Red Army was Leon Trotsky (Bronstein) who was secretely sent by ZOG, along with his thugs, from New York to Russia (through Canada).
PS
Sheeple don't realise that Stalin stopped the World Wide Zionist Revolution which intended to turn the whole world into GULAG. Russians just happened to be the first victims of the ZOG slavery project.
Capitalism is not an economic system. It is a philosophy of being free from coercion.
How inane! Capitalism is a philosophy of using money to make money. You, go stand in the line with Myer Rothschild.
Bullshit you fucking buffoon. We find ourselves stuck under crony capitalism because imbeciles like you insist that the federal govt MUST be balls deep in every last affair of every last businessman.
Too bad you're too stupid to realize you're whining aboutthe results of what YOU support. How the FUCK do you have a crony without the laws that make him one? Good grief, I'm amazed you're breathing unassisted.
So crony capitalism exists because of government, not because of human nature? You think if society started all over again under complete free market capitalism, within a few centuries there wouldn't be another Rothschild or Warburg or Rockefeller or whoever with more resources, skill, and intelligence than you taking advantage of the system (certainly even acting in concert for goals that are mutally beneficial) until eventually there is a fee simply to let you breathe?
DOPE.
.gov systems to control the so called free person..communists had the winning ticket in the 20th century, now the corrupt .gov called democracy/socialist..or by me just the modern state is the winning ticket.
soon the elite will need the common man less and less as AI and robotics reach greater and greater levels ..
at some point the MSM and .gov will convince the progressive types to die for the state, or the eco system of ma earth..the culling of the no longer needed...
so cultivate in your children the will to live, (the birth rates for whites is dropping because of our programming)..
don't be culled.
You said it yourself.... Systems. All systems can be corrupted, ergo, that is why unrestrained capitalism is the best....is not a system.
I agree. Capitalism by individuals is probably the most peaceful compatible way of life there is. What has evolved today is chronyism and/or corporatism. These two structures vary little in outcome to socialism/communism as the end result is those at the top prosper and those at the bottom don't. There seems to be a historic or natural evolution in the gene pool of mankind. Look back thousands of years and a band/tribe of humans always had a leader or chief or elder of some sort that benefited from the hunting-gathering of others.
http://michael-hudson.com/2015/09/killing-the-host-the-book/
Crony Captalisim IS unrestrained Capitalism. When rule of law and regulation are arbitary and/or not enforced, the regulators bought or captured, policy makers corrupted and bought or captured, the Judiciary bought or captured, Crony Capitalism is unrestrained.
Unregulated Capitalism, and Capitalism in general, rarely includes broader metrics such as decimation of environment and human amenity into the 'bottom line' spreadsheet. Look at China, or even the US insofar as the great wealth generation of US inventiveness, ingenuity, enterprise and hard work, was done on a rich and fertile land that is now largely exhausted. That 'big blank canvas' cannot be re-created, and invading other countries to steal their assets comes with blowback. On the physical and spiritual plain.
Further more, the generally high standard of living in the US has been made possible since WW2 by issuing the world reserve currency, which has been used to 'print to pay for what other countries have to produce' for trade. ie, living well beyond their means.I love the best of what the US has modelled for the world, but the worst is truly truly shameful, and a profound affront to humanity, and human dignity.
Ahhh, now I get it, you must think government forcing taxpayers money (and unlimited debt bondage) into Gaaarrreeeen! projects and social welfare run by corporations is capitalism!
My bad ;-)
there is no unrestrained private ownership of the means of production in this world, hence there is no unrestrained capitalism.
capitalism, i.e. the private ownership of the means of production, conserves scarce resources by raising their price on the markets. only when private property is violated systematically can "the world be destroyed". that is what happens under socialism.
please get your terminology right. don't just call everything that you dislike "capitalism".
I think you misunderstand my point, I am not advocating socialism or limiting private ownership. My point is simply that the collusion of government and corportions without any enforced restraint is destructive. Capitalism is the best way to raise the quality of life, yes, but I don't trust Walmart, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs and the gang to keep the best interests of humanity and the planet in mind as they bribe politicians and push legislation that serves only their interests.
That's not capitalism. Capitalism simply means that you can catch more fish with a net (capital equipment) than you can by hand. Working smarter and saving some of today's gains for tomorrow never exploited anyone.
I think thomas sowell used the net in 'Simple Economics', great man!
btw we are leaving out the term free markets as synonymous with the derogatory term 'capitalism'
Agreed.
"Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism." -- Rothbard
https://mises.org/library/new-banner-interview-murray-n-rothbard-0
"Capitalism simply means that you can catch more fish with a net (capital equipment) than you can by hand. Working smarter and saving some of today's gains for tomorrow never exploited anyone."
If this is capitalism, then every society since the neanderthals has been capitalist. All human societies use tools to increase productivity.
Lets try to think about things a little bit before we write stuff down on the comments.
If this is capitalism, then every society since the neanderthals has been capitalist. All human societies use tools to increase productivity.
Lets try to think about things a little bit before we write stuff down on the comments.
Yes, do think. Every individual who has ever invested some of today's profits in hope of being more profitable tomorrow has practiced capitalism. Now you understand and can stop despising a very simple, necessary and effective system.
ok. but please do not call that capitalism. here are the definitions, by K. Marx:
capitalism - organization of society based on the private ownership of the means of production
socialism - organization of society based on public ownership of the means of production
so: when private property is violated on an institutional basis, it becomes public or partially public, i.e. partially socialist. logical turnaround: socialism = institutionalized violation of private property.
and yes, both socialism and capitalism use capital, i.e. capital goods. the difference is how the use of these capital goods is determined: central planner of private owner.
now: business people want to make money. in a "unrestrained" capitalist societies, there is no govt to bribe, hence the only way to make money is to please the consumers, i.e. you , me and everyone. once you introduce an institution like the govt, there begins a competition to influence the govt. that is so called cronyism.
Socialism, horror version... coming soon to a theater near you !
The feudal system in Europe was based on the private ownership of the means of production. The elites owned the land and the vassals were compensated to work the land (although they had no other choice because they owned no property). A baby born into the system had a 1% chance of being born into a noble family, and a 99% chance of being a serf and remaining so for the rest of their life.
Property begets power and power begets property.
Let this dynamic play out over a reasonable period of time and soon enough almost all the property is held by a small group of very powerful people. This is not difficult to understand, and we can see it all around us in North American society. Even here in "socialist" Canada. Even if you are upper-middle class with a good job, before too long someone will invent some gadget that will do your job and you will be out on your ass. The guy who owns the gadget will get richer, and you will get poorer.
"Let this dynamic play out over a reasonable period of time and soon enough almost all the property is held by a small group of very powerful people."
Elite rulers exist so long as society chooses to patronize them; make them go away by doing the opposite. Sadly, most societies are infantile and are thus unwilling to sacrifice:
I want my iPad, my Facebook, and my funny TV shows... and I want my government to protect me from threats, real or imagined, including the evil elite.
Socialism? You mean like Cuba and N. Korea? Um, socialism is dead. China created more millionaires and billionaires than the USA last year.
Or do you mean social democracy? Like, you know, Sweden, Germany, and New Zealand?
Why the fear mongering over a dead socio-political system? I don't get it.
"I think you misunderstand my point,"
Mmm, no, it's just that you're so ridiculously wrong. But please, keep paraphrasing your stupidity.
"Mmm, no, it's just that you're so ridiculously wrong."
That's a brilliant, well thought out counterpoint. Wipe the drool from your bubbling lips and put the keyboard away. I think that's enough internet for you today.
@Poopra - as the freedom and capitalist loving preson that I am, I totally get your point and concur. Your writing and reasoning is not difficult to comprehend.
All I can say is: look at what day and time much of the enraged vitriol came your way. Very late on Fri night....so no doubt, some of these guys were halfway down a bourbon bottle and can't think straight or control their latent anger.
Don't feed them, it's not worth your time.
I appreciate your post. Sometimes I'm not as eloquent as is necessary and ZH on a friday night is not for the faint of heart!
Cheers!
"please get your terminology right. don't just call everything that you dislike "capitalism"."
Please don't call everything that you dislike 'socialism'. It seems to trigger a response similar to the 'red scare' in you yanks. Think control.
What you're referring to as 'unrestrained capitalism' you fucking buffoon, is the crony capitalist fascism YOU support. Calling you a fucking buffoon is a compliment. Dumbass democrat
That i support? Did you even read my post? And calling me a Democrat!? So much anger here!
I suppose I'd be angry too if I had your level of reading comprehension you illiterate fuck. There's your compliment.
there is no unrestrained capitalism at the moment. either corny capitalism or - better yet - state corporatism. not even close to capitalism either way. read the basic stuff first before making the 'leftist' view of blaming capitalism for all that is happening now.
What the hell is "unrestrained Capitalism"? Is it too many people cooperating and prospering living in freedom and safety? What you describe is not Capitalism. It sounds like "unrestrained Marxo-Fascism.
What the hell is "unrestrained Capitalism"? Is it too many people cooperating and prospering living in freedom and safety? What you describe is not Capitalism. It sounds like "unrestrained Marxo-Fascism.
Restrained Capitalism is not Capitalism......
Even freedom is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. Capitalism, like freedom, must have limits otherwise it can be destructive.
So somehow committing suicide hurts the rights of others? They had the right and/or "freedom" to terminate themselves and it was no doubt destructive.
I love these societal impacting type of philosophical discussions! ;-)
What in heaven's name are you talking about?
I thought it was clear enough...
"Even freedom is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. Capitalism, like freedom, must have limits otherwise it can be destructive."
You wrote it ;-)
I understand what i said perfectly. I have no idea what your point about suicide is.
Well perhaps something was lost between the points (or perspectives) of our minds. Freedom. The freedom to choose.
Aren't we told about "our right" to do with our bodies as we wish?
Sure, if you want to commit suicide that's completely fine with me. :)
Joking aside, i like arguing with you so I would rather you didn't, but i certainly will not stop you from exercising your freedom to choose.
lol...I'm not going to another astral plane anytime soon, at least voluntarily ;-)
You don't need to kill yourself, 5g of psilicybin mushrooms should do the trick ;)
Freedom is a handful of free Nembutal. ;-)
True Freedom and Capitalism are self limiting through the natural system of reward and consequence. Artificially imposed limitations are at best disruptive and ultimately destructive to both......
And there ya go..."True Freedom and Capitalism are self limiting through the natural system of reward and consequence."
I don't think they'll ever get it...lol.
Really? And what consequence would there be for murdering you and claiming all of your property without artifically imposed limitations such as laws?
Someone killing the murderer who did it?
in pure capitalism, the consequences would be terrible for you. my defense insurance company would retaliated against you with everything it has. if it did not, it would loose all of its voluntary paying customers.
if you are honest with yourself, if there were no govt, would you just start going around killing and looting? or would you rather get together with your neighbors, invest some of the money you saved in taxes in better door locks and a few guns to protect yourselves, and then simply get on with your productive life?
And for those that cannot afford a "defense insurance company" policy, do they not have the luxury of justice?
Honestly, i'm more of an anarchist but i'm just playing devil's advocate here. Your second paragraph about coming together with my neighbors and moving on with my life is exactly what i would do. I just don't trust others to conduct themselves in a similar fashion.
Your local capitalists will reach into their deep pockets and pay for basic security for anyone who wants it. Capitalists want safe neighborhoods and streets so that business can go on unimpeded.
With freedom comes responsibility. If people didn't assume that the govt' "has their back", do you really think society wouldn't evolve to have each other's back?
I think the majority certainly would. But here come that 5-10% of psychopaths again...
" i'm more of an anarchist"
Said the buffoon that's all up and down this page pining for govt control. Something tells me you dont dont know your ass from a hole in the ground.
The Natural Law is sufficient to deal with 99% of the issues associated with humanity; including Freedom and Capitalism. Everything else is an artificial system designed ultimately to reward/discipline one class/group of people over another, resulting in the exact situation we find ourselves in today. Freedom did not cause any of this. Capitalism did not cause any of this.....
I agree, this was not the result of Freedom or Capitalism, but corrupt human beings that gamed both for their benefit.
Now we're gettin somewhere "but corrupt human beings that gamed both for their benefit."
Which isn't any relation to capitalism.
Capitalism is merely a tool, inert without human beings. I suppose i should've made it clear that people should be restrained, not capitalism.
I didn't downvote you btw
So, your problem isn't with capitalism, it's with socio/psychopaths. Unfortuanately *paths will always exist, however a large state provides the perfect ladder for them to climb.
Yes...they are typically drawn to positions where they can exercise power. *Sigh*
What to do...what to do...
In a system where everyone receives equal treatment under the Law, which is what the American Republic was specifically founded upon, no one need be restrained....
And what consequence would there be for murdering you and claiming all of your property without artifically imposed limitations such as laws?
There's nothing artificial about a voluntary security and adjudication contract agreed to by consenting parties. Why don't you read something like Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty in which free market solutions are presented for all sorts of situations for which you would likely insist that a coercive government is necessary?
May I add Bastiat's "The Law" to that reading list?
imho a third book to add is Plato's Republic
capitalism by definition defines a limit: private property. in capitalism, you can do whatever you want with your stuff, as long as you to not intefere with other peoples' property.
sound limiting enough?
really, do read "socialism" by mises. it makes everything much clearer.
So what happens when you do interfere with other people's property, including the safety of the public or even the nation itself, but your "stuff" has gotten so large and influential that you avoid all threats to your power with your wealth and influence? Capitalism isn't the reason, simply the environment that was used to achieve this.
Eventually this cronyism will spread like a cancer and destroy the system itself, markets will become skewed, we are seeing this now in the manipulation of the Comex, stocks, derivatives, bonds etc. How do we prevent this while still maintaining our committment to free markets?
I am watching the effects of this in a small way right now. A few miles away from my home a rather wealthy woman moved into the community. She spent 100s of thousands on a lavish 10k sq foot home and her 5 acre parcel was landscaped to perfection. Including a 3 acre beautiful lawn in our arid environment. Within a year she drained her well dry. Her solution? Drill 3 more, even deeper. Homes in the area started to lose their wells as well. Lawsuits were filed but she has the money to fight them easily. Where is the scientific proof that my wells have affected yours? It is still ongoing. She will win in the end because she can afford to hire water trucks to fill her storage tanks even if there is no more water in the ground to pump out. She has no motivation to change and has nothing to fear. Droughts are for little people.
I have motivation not to do the same because I don't have the wealth to live as she. Also, I have no inclination to rape the land where I live and move on as a locust. Realizing the harm is innate and not considered. I question those who would use capitalism to harm others as truly of a psychopathic nature, not as pursuing their own dreams for happiness.
Miffed
This is an excellent point, and a perfect example of what i didn't have the eloquence to explain. Thank you.
You're making a couple assumptions here. In a free market system, one where people understood their personal limitations (to not adversely impact others) and responsibilities (one of which may include to limit the adverse impacts impose on them or their compatriots), those accumulating enough power and wealth to suppress others against their will would be uncommon. The oppressor would obtain a reputation for his/her behavior, and others would avoid interacting with them, or may even resolve the issue themselves.
Entities or individuals obtain lots of power with subsidy from states. Either in the form of regulatory benefits, tax benefits, property access/benefits, favored customer status, patent protections, or even direct payments. None of this would exist in a capitalist system, so as soon as someone started making lots of money, they'd have lots of competition.
Another assumption to which your argument alludes is the justice system in free market would function as our justice system does today (motivated by politics, not the protection of rights or determination of justice). A capitalist justice system would be voluntary and practiced by people that understand failure to administer justice puts them in the same category as the oppressor, and they may suffer the consequences of unjust decisions. The people will quickly eliminate corrupt predators and justice system practitioners.
In the rare cases where someone was able to accumulate wealth and power to oppress, those that are oppressed would resist with force.
Would this function flawlessly? No. The consistency of implementation would vary from region to region. People would gravitate to the regions where a balance of security and freedom were acceptable to them. Voluntary governing systems would have to compete or risk population depletion and diminished economic activity.
It wouldn't be a world run by vigilantes, but active citizen participants. It would be far less tyrannical, oppressive, and violent (once the predators are reduced or terrified into controlling themselves) than the system we now have, especially for the principled and just members of society.
I understand your point, however I don't believe I am making conjectures in a void. Look at the world we live in. Virtually all corporations or individuals powerful enough to tip the scales in their favor do so regularly and with impunity.
Perhaps having smaller communities where we are familiar with each other would help offset the indifference we feel towards each other in very large cities or communities, but only marginally I think. There will always be that certain percentage of individuals that are ready to bulldoze over the rights of people that cannot resist them.
For example, would removing laws against monopolies be healthy? What would have happened to us if Standard Oil was allowed to continue business as it was without any outside limitations?
Well I guess we would need an "unrestrained capitalistic economic model" for comparative purposes wouldn't we? In capitalism, there's more people trying to drag down Daddy Warbucks to their level (one assumes he's privileged & rich...lol) than the Daddy Warbucks of society can possibly deal with on their own.
Hence, you have...laws. Laws require enforcement, a government, after all a law is not a suggestion, it's a "requirement" or there is a penalty.
So, the point being made, what is REALLY more dangerous, pure capitalism or "unrestrained government"?
Woodchippers? Are you a Reasonoid?
He believes in rationalism. Oops!
Let's give credit where credit is due. The wonderful photos. The the mass murders. The wars and attendent human suffering due to the planning and willful actions of the Ruling Oligarchy. Principally Wall Street, the City of London, e.t.c.
A little history -
“The most powerful of the Black Nobility families are located in Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Britain, Holland and Greece in that order These people earned the title of "Black" nobility from their ruthless lack of scruple. They employed murder, rape, kidnapping, assassination, robbery, and all manner of deceit on a grand scale, brooking no opposition to attaining their objectives. These all have immense wealth. And? money is power.
Documentary proof as to the existence of the Committee of 300 is not forthcoming, and it may be no more than a convenient phrase to describe certain key players. Socialist politician and financial adviser? to the Rothschilds, Walter Rathenau, writing in the Wiener Press (24 December, 1921) said, “Only 300 men, each of whom knows all others govern the fate of Europe. They select their successors? from their own entourage. These men have the means in their hands of putting an end to the form of State which they find unreasonable." Exactly six months after publication, Rathenau was assassinated.
Thanks benb,
this is always instructive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDlbg1VoMZ0
...and some other, more obscure history - from Russian Major General Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich who was a Russian Count at the time of the Bolshevik revolution, a free downloadable book that exposed the whole Rothschild plot:
"Secret World Government or The Hidden Hand".
resist.com/SecretGovernment-Spiridovich.pdf
It is hard going, as the man was quite the self-promoter and his English skills were lacking, but the hundreds of quotes and other damning information in that book are pure gold. That book had enough evidence to prove that a conspiracy by the bankers to rule the world had existed at least since the 1700's, and that they committed ritual sacrifices to whatever 'god' they worshipped. He also accurately predicted that WWII would involve the USA vs. Japan.
Oh, and by the way: the general was found dead in his bed in 1926, just before his book was to go to press, with a gas line pipe stuck in his throat. It was called a 'suicide.'
You are very correct, paveway. It is estimated that around 4-5% of the human population are psychopaths. Most of them are not mass murderers. Most of them are men in leadership positions; In business, law enforcement, the military, media. They are interspecies predators and as long as the sheeply minded masses look for leaders to show them the way, they will rise to the top. If there is one thing that can be done for the human species to allow it to thrive, it's to foster and nurture the ability of critical thinking.
Yup. Dead-on. A great book about psychopaths and their predilections was written by a Polish psychologist, called 'Political Ponerology' - Andrew Lobaczevsky (sp?). These bastards take advantage of most people's gentle nature, as they have no capability to feel compassion or empathy. And I agree, critical thinking is THE key to understand what and who it is you are dealing with, along with this: if you ever find yourself in a position like those poor bastards kneeling to their murderer, don't just sit there and take it.
FIGHT BACK.
Long live Soltzhenitsyn.
Hear, hear! Just started re-reading The Gulag Archipelago a couple of days ago. I wonder how many Marxist sycophants would have the courage to pick up this tome and give it an thoughtful read. Cheers.
Here are the tools to apply intellectual self-defense...
The Trivium Method of Intellectual Self-Defense
http://www.weaponsofmassdebt.com/index.php/blog/trivium1/
Lobaczewski and his collaborators took some of their early work from the study of clinical psychopaths in mental institutions. The real body of their work ended up explaining how everyday, normal people became evil, i.e., psychopaths - this was in the various author's extremely repressive East European countries during the 30's, 40's and 50's.
They were trying to explain why, say so many East Germans would tolerate the Stazi and be willing to help them, or likewise with the Georgeans and Czeka State Secret Police. They were interested in the psychopathic tendencies of Communist Party political leaders, but became much more interested in why evil spread so quickly in societies that were formerly mostly decent, good, sociable God-fearing people. What started as an indictment of Communism morphed into an intricate look at the fundamental nature of evil itself. The conclusion in the lost body of work was that Communism, Stalinism and any other -ism wasn't the source of evil, it was only a tool for them. Psychopathy was an infectious psycholgical disease of people and organizations, not an organic condition of either one. Soviet-style Communism just happened to be extremely vulnerable and effective at spreading it.
It's unfortunate that any emphasis is still placed on the earlier statements of Lobaczewski about the 5% clinical/organic psychopaths in society. He was a practicing psychiatrist and repeats that assertion in Political Ponerology, but that's not where the body of work ended up. In the lost works of the original collaborative effort, the emphasis was on the fact that all of us are vulnerable to psychopathy (not just the rich or powerful or 5%) and it's largely curable infectious disease. But it will never be eradicated, so we always have to be vigilant and contain it whenever it pops up.
They pretty much concluded that attempting to eradicate it by seeking out and killing that 5% was useless and harmful. Taking down infected organizations was useless - the psychopaths would move on to infect some other organization. Likewise, just getting rid of individual psychopaths doesn't cure an infected organization. Better to recognize our (and our organizations') eternal vulnerability and discourage or contain it. Don't let the 5% run your country or your religion because they will infect it and everyone in it.
We have to live with psychopathy just like we live with billions of germs every day. No need to steralize the entire planet, just wash your hands and don't lick the handrails on the escalators of NY subways. The focus shouldn't be on 'fighting infection', it should be on preventing it from ever getting to be a problem to begin with. We're wired - in our DNA - to be healthy, not psychopathic. We have built-in immunity, but it's easy to suppress our immunity in times of chaos and suffering. Poor, powerless people can be just as psychopathic as world leaders. Psychopaths have no control over the infectious nature of the disease. They don't really need to 'recruit' healthy people to join them - it's unnecessary. People subject to the will of psychopaths or that belong to psychopathic organizations are going to get infected anyway.
The 'cure' for psychopathy starts with recognizing your own eternal vulnerability and staying healthy yourself. Remembering your humanity and recognizing psychopathy around us is enough - no woodchippers necessary (to my great dismay!).
Great comment, but I think you are confusing psychopathy with sociopathy here. Psychophaths are born; sociopaths are created and are *usually* either in the employ of or are the children of psychopaths - hence, they 'learn' their unfortunate traits. And one thing we know now that Lobaczewski and others didn't know then, is this: psychopaths have an actual genetic mutation that results in their inability to feel compassion or empathy:
http://www.sott.net/article/281444-Psychopathy-What-you-probably-dont-kn...
This is a genetic mutation in the reptilian brain, and it CAN be detected. So, if this is true, the question is: what do we DO with this information? Do we go test everyone, and anyone who has these defects is wood-chipped? This isn't easy stuff to deal with, but it MUST be - and SOON - if humanity is to survive.
We'll just have to disagree on this one, IV.
The point of my prevous post was to point out just the opposite. I would humbly suggest that you are mulling over trying to eradicate the plague by identifying witches that cause the disease and burning them, rather than building sewers and a trash collection system to get rid of rats and fleas and washing your hands. I'm not sure what to say about your claim of a detectable genetic mutation, but it would be news to the scientific community. Mengele had ideas along that line.
I use the term pyschopathy specifically in the context of Lobaczewski's works, not in the clinical meaning that psychiatrists used a decade or two ago. In Ponerology, psychopathy as a more expansive meaning than sociopathy, not a more restrictive or different meaning. If this discussion was among psychiatrists here, then I wouldn't even use the term psychopathy.
My reading of Lobaczewski and the works on ponerology is that we should take personal responsibility and focus on our (and our organization's) own vulnerability and role in contagion. Playing Whack-a-Mole with powerful psychopaths or their organizations is mostly futile and distracts us from fixing the mechanism that eternally empowers them: us.
I'm happy just to see people occasionally use the word psychopathy today, so carry on an never mind my interpretation. People learned to wash their nasty asses, build sewage systems and clean up their garbage before they had any idea about the existence of germs causing the Black Plague. Shaved apes will eventually figure this one out, too.
The "ism" has a lot to do with how things turn out. Bourgeois Christianity, secularism, and Islam lead to very different approaches to morality.
Still, it's clear that the Framers failed to appreciate the later destructive role of sociopaths. I'm unaware of any reference they made to such people though clearly they feared both ambitious men and the mob.
I don't even think it's a failure to recognize. Rather it's that people don't give a damn, at least when they're overfed and over-entertained.
"...Still, it's clear that the Framers failed to appreciate the later destructive role of sociopaths. I'm unaware of any reference they made to such people though clearly they feared both ambitious men and the mob..."
Which should have been enough to work with as time went on. I imagined they hoped future generations would be smart enough to better define the threats and guard against them. What they couldn't foresee is the simultaneous corruption of state governments and all three branches of federal government so that a seemingly legitimate self-sustaining cycle of increasing federal empowerment was created.
I say seemingly legitimate because the usurped voting process and corrupt political parties make it seem like we are continually approving the transfer of our liberty, freedom and the fruits of our labor to the state in return for their benevolence and protection.
In hindsight, it was foolish to assume a state-level politician would act in the interests of their constituents when that politician's future pay raises, bribes and the extent of their power and influence depended on them doing the exact opposite: defying the framers and empowering the federal government (their future employer) as much as possible. And it goes without saying that once they are a part of the federal machine, they're never ever going to vote to reduce it's power and wealth and transfer it back to the people.
Which speaks to the idea that psychopathy can infect an institution independent from it's members. Firing every last state and federal official and replacing them all would not change the psychopathic nature of the system. Normal people in it will become control and power-seeking, and do the exact same thing in time.
That's not an indictment of constitutional or democratic republics in general or the framer's work, only an indictment of what ours has morphed into over time.
Yes, absolutely. The Framers and Ratifiers assumed that institutional interests would be eternal and that they were an impregnable safeguard. They failed to foresee the psychopathy you describe, though I prefer to keep it at the level of sociopathy except where where were talking about the Muslim-loving, America-hating, affirmative-action freak with no papers frequently observed on the nation's golf courses during moments of crisis.
The repeal of the 17th Amendment, the passage of the 16th, and the establishment of a central bank in private hands were the coup de grace of the Republic. The Senate no longer represented state interests. Federal courts turned out to be guardians of federal interest, perhaps because free of senatorial checks. State laws fell like wheat before the federal scythe.
The tidal wave of cash into federal hands instantly became the O'Rourkian nightmare of giving whiskey and the car keys to teenaged boys. FDR perfected if not invented buying votes with taxpayer money. Without that we might have kept the wheels coming off.
The intellectual hypocrisy and betrayal of the Supreme Court was the icing on the cake, deriving from the corruption of Congress that had no backbone to impeach. We'll be destroyed by this betrayal but at least we upheld <em>stare decisis</em> by golly.
Yeah right, under capitalism everybody lives very HAPPY. Love simplistic analysis, socialism this, capitalism that....
Capitalism, socialism, and communism have never existed at scale. Ever.
People use the wrong terms.
Try "different levels of authoritarianism masked by the illusion of capitalism, socialism, and communism."
The Western countries are ruled by Debt-Money Monopolists who are above the law and rely on deception and economic incentives in order to "manage" their empire "resources" according to their agenda.
It would appear the steel fist is being wiggled out of the velvet glove.
Please. Capitalism says nothing about happiness. One is free to try to attain happiness, freedom from worry, or simply amelioration of one's condition. It presupposes limited state interference. This article discusses what happens when there is a LOT of state interference, such as with leftist regimes.
Now... Take your pick: relative freedom to pursue your interests free of interference by busybodies, sociopaths, and killers.
Or ..... . living under busybodies, sociopaths, and killers.
How hard is this to figure out?
The USSA is already there. FEMA camps await the the non-bellievers.
That 200 million figure is way short, these bastards have murdered billions.
It's a good thing that the U.S. never perpetrated bad things like them rascally Russians.
The US lynched about 5,000 people in some 80 years. The Soviets killed 30-68 million in 72.
Take it away, ersatz000.
Pretty sure Stalin the "Socialist" would go after people like Krugman who pretend they are one thing while furthering a different agenda...
What was your problem with oceans of blood again?
Mises fans are some of the most colossally ignorant people on the face of the planet.
Did you know that libertarianism and socialism before they both got perverted had common ground?
You didn't? Oh, so you are a shill then...
I live in today, not in the past. I could care less what brands used to be. I care about what they are today and what they are doing now.
Decades ago liberals were not leftist nut-jobs. Now they are. Who cares what they were in the past?
Yet the contributor of this article goes to the past to make a case...WTF?
Caveway said it best earlier.
When you do not call something what it is and attach another label to it, you will never be able to root it out of society because you are targeting something else.
It as if sociopaths now are imbedded amongst Mises fans trying to point where they are not.
(It is not just Mises fans btw-all isms have them, I just point it out because they are so oblivious about it)
OK. You completely missed my point. No problem.
I can see the danger from Mises fans. Their general outlook is that government should leave people alone. To limit the damage government does. Very dangerous.
Except government is not the only thing that damages, and in today's world we have things even larger than governments. Getting rid of governments would still leave those other things. And those other things are just as or more exploitive than governments. And in theory you can participate in government.
The fact that it is now theory and not fact does tend to make people believe that government is dangerous.
Well, that is what revolutions are for isn't it? Don't take your ball home in a huff, kick the mofos of YOUR basketball court.
That is what revolutions are for. And by some unnatural quirk of nature, some oddity of structure, they're against the law...lol.
Its just fascinating why that is ;-)
What other "things" are you referring to. Please limit the list to "things" that don't derive their power from gov't influence or control.
No, your innocent nescience is dangerous. Governments are financed and controlled by Debt-Money Monopolists. Private Debt-Money Monopolists. The #1 cause of misery and death on this planet is... poverty.
The #1 cause of poverty is... DEBT MONEY TYRANNY.
One person's net monetary wealth is, BY DEFINITION, someone else's INEXTINGUISHABLE DEBT. Give a couple cronies millions, sign up countries to $100s of billions in debt, launder the money through your corporate fronts... ordinary people in the country are economically impoverished with inextinguishable debt.
All that's left is the starving and dying - by the billions and 10s of millions per year, respectively.
What entity ENFORCES THIS DEBT-MONEY TYRANNY PRIMA FACIE FRAUD?
Government.
And even if you are a narcissist, you are pretty ignorant if you don't realize the very tactic used to subjugate, impoverish, loot, and control other nations is in full effect in the West, too.
“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”
? Napoléon Bonaparte
You are living in a Debt-Money Monopolist world control takeover program and politicians are merely their hired guns posing as being powerful.
The truth is, though, that there are no good ways for humans to govern themselves give THE FATAL FLAW.
The fatal flaw is that people don't care about others equal to how they care about themselves. If they did, the world would be an entirely different place... right here, right now.
Fuck you and step off. How's that?
"but but but ours is a better more refined version of socialism" in 3..2..1..
You see them two guys in their undershorts there bub? yea.. them, they were party loyalist right up until the bullet blew out their frontal lobe.
Governments are the biggest killers on the planet.
Start here:https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
Society is a socialist system.
Just what do you think the purpose of society is? The word Society comes fromt he same root as Socialism. Its root is the Latin sociare, which means to combine or to share. In this country we have socailized defence, highway and airline transportation, law enforcement, court system, etc and etc. We all contribute and we all share in the benefits. If you want to try and go it alone, live by yourself on an island, and good luck! Let me leave you to ponder the greatest description of socialism ever written:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
But the sociopaths told us that society is evil.
/sarc
oh horseshit, these things were all private enterprises until people relinquished it to .gov and then it turned to shit. Yes people pooled their money for a town sheriff but no one shoved a pistol in their face and confiscated their earnings under threat of death or prison.
Socialism is fine if it is voluntary, once one group hires .gov to enforce their will on another you get DemoCrazy.
No, you moron. You are just playing word games.
Society is the voluntary cooperation of people to obtain the benefits of the division of labor based on the private ownership of all goods.
Socialism destroys society. Unless you call an army or a prison camp, i.e. a system of command and coercion, a "society".
There is a very large difference between cooperation and collectivism. There is no force in the former.
You fell in love with the root of the word "socialism" but fail to focus on what is meant by the word itself. "Orchid" has an unusual root but it's understood to refer to a flower.
Note that a police force is not a means of production.
"Socialism" in practice is not "socialism" in theory. The same holds true for capitalism and communism.
The Debt-Money Monopolists promote those concepts knowing full well they confuse the thoughts and communication ability of the rabble. It's a feature, NOT a bug.
The problem with socialism is that is consolidates POWER into the hands of the few CONTROLLERS.
If the CONTROLLERS were angelic, we'd be OK to a large extent. Yes, it is true that market signals would be missed, but that's not why most of the waste occurs. It occurs because the system is corrupt.
And therein lies the problem. Anytime power and wealth is centralized, CRIMINAL ELEMENTS SMARTER THAN JOE AND JANE 6-PACK take over and DOMINATE.
For example, they run drugs, weapons, launder drug money, and are above the law. But, if the rabble gets caught using their product... 10 years b*.
No, government is not alright. They are criminals. The root cause is a prole selfish based on nescience and ignorance... to lazy to hold the criminals to account. So the crime spree and death toll grow.
But the alternatives are bad, too. A "free state" would be overrun by the empire du jour. I think the Constitutional framers had it very close, but We, The Pathetic, Narcissistic People failed in our duties and now we are part of the Debt-Money Monopolist Empire that started ruling over Britain.
Agreed. Communism went straight to the dictatorship of the politburo with nothing whatsoever even pretending to limit that.
The Framers and Ratifiers made an inspired effort to interpose precisely those limits, but we threw it all away like a candy wrapper. In an environmentally appropriate container, of course.
Anti-trust laws and laws against fraud, unfair competition, campaign contribution laws, immigration laws, securities laws, laws of civil procedure and evidence, laws against theft, extortion, arson, and trade libel all were intended to keep the process honest but the oligarchs and scum bags broke free.
Bernie Sanders is a criminal. In a long line of Jewish criminals. What I can't figure out (I'm Jewish and so in some measure an insider) is why they persist. Although I must say the less Orthodox the Jew the more prone to impose socialism. Generally.
It's the alien DNA in the khazar lineage.