thekey
Oct 31 2009, 01:20 PM
A great bunch of people think Maxism was radical or there is something strange about the selfish gene theory. But ask again:
QUOTE (thekey)
If you know that nothing is absolute, then everything has it weaknesses. There is nothing radical about equality or selfish gene is there? The war of words between communism and capitalism was just a ruse to start the real war. If you agree that Viet Nam war was a ruse, then open your eyes and look further and you will know the others will be ruse too. How else do you think wars started?
To rule over you, they have to claim they are more civilized than you, better than you.
thekey
Nov 3 2009, 04:05 AM
QUOTE (thekey @ Oct 31 2009, 01:20 PM)
A great bunch of people think Maxism was radical or there is something strange about the selfish gene theory. But ask again:
Why do people find these theories radical: equality or the selfish of man?
thekey
Nov 7 2009, 05:51 PM
These theories are neither radical or new. They are just tricks to divide the world and to go to wars.
Parzifal
Nov 29 2009, 01:13 PM
You can see that it is a fake war from the fact that the richest men on earth financed the communist movement. Trotzky & brothers for example have been founded by Max Warburg and could train for civil war on the piece of land where now the UNO headquarter stands. It belongs to the Rockefellers....
The key to understand this paradox is to know that there are no real-life differences between communism and monopol capitalism.
The later one is characterized as the end of all concurrency because everything belongs to a small oligarchy. The slogan of the Rockefellers was: "Concurrency is a sin!"
What's the difference to communism? In communism all should belong to all. "Fine", you may think - let's use this noble car over there. But surprise - you will be taken by the security service - for "stealing people's property".
You may ask them: who may use this car? You will see - a very small oligarchy....
So communism is nothing more than the wet dream of the super-rich because then all belongs to them in practice, on the paper it belongs "to the people" for sure....
Ernst Juenger wrote: "You can increase slavery dramatically by letting it look like freedom."
It's the same with all the other "high ideals" of the "west". Written down it always sounds very noble, but in practice it's worthless.
Political freedom? Freedom of speech? You know about the many "opinion laws" in the west? Besides this: who struggles for his survival with 2-3 jobs has no time to make political moves.
Freedom of press means that the entire press will be bought by a small oligarchy. "Human rights?" Yes, of course when accusing others, for themselves they simply ignore it.
Lesley Stahl asked the "american" foreign minister Madlein Albright: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it"