New world order

[Nathan K.]

And when it comes to the definition of "capitalism."
I would define capitalism as a society which economic system is founded on private ownership.
For me, that is fundamental in what constitutes capitalism.

You should reevaluate your terms. Do you mean to say that even though a society is "founded" with a particular economic system in mind, it can still be categorized as such if said system is demolished and replaced by a different one? Or do you mean to say that the U.S. actually has an economic system rooted in private ownership?

I will assume the latter. And in that case, you've defeated your own argument.

1. Taxes.

As Americans, we pay property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, estate taxes, the list goes on and on.

What this means is that there is no private ownership, not even over our own bodies. Everything we own, including ourselves, we rent from the government. If we refuse to pay the rent, we are thrown in cages. Through eminent domain and other swindles, anything we "own" can be randomly stripped from us without cause.

2. The monetary system is nationalized - Federal Reserve

3. The healthcare system is nationalized - American Medical Association

4. The agricultural system is nationalized - FDA, Monsanto, Dept. of Ag

5. The education system is nationalized - Department of Education

6. The postal system is nationalized - USPS

7. The energy system is nationalized - Department of Energy

8. The environment and everything in it is nationalized - EPA

9. The passenger train system is nationalized - Amtrak

-- This is only a sampling. If you'd like to see more, here is an incomplete list of the national agencies controlling every aspect of our lives: http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/D.shtml

As you see, the U.S. government controls and regulates EVERYTHING. In situations where it does not regulate an industry directly, it uses so-called "private" corporations to usurp its own laws by regulating that these corporations and organizations have sole authority over the industry!

It is Corporatism. It is Fascism. It is Slavery.

Capitalism? Hahaha

But, do you know what's great about the whole conspiracy theory-narrative. Now you can just forget about this whole China-debt-thing. Pretend like it was never a big deal, and then just say that it's the "NWO" or something, that can never be neither verified och falsified, since the NWO is such a vague concept that you can manage to fit in pretty much anything you want and don't sympathize with.

The NWO isn't a vague concept. It's been verified countless times by those who serve it in explicit detail. Those who ignore it are tools.

From the horse's mouth:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptcp07v_w-w

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8uzxEHFDkw

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksy2yrUNd9Q

[Nathan K.]

It depends. Without being an expert on american financial politics (since I'm not american), I would say that the federal reserve has the purpose of stabilizing the economic structure in a capitalistic system, on behalf of the state. You could argue that is does not actually serve this purpose, but it's still its purpose.

So...

Capitalism is a system of private ownership... And to preserve this system of private ownership, we must use a system of government ownership?

Keep going. This keeps getting better.


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

[Aloadae]

"Controls and regulations" is a restriction of the free market, yes.
But is there no private ownership in the fields you mention?
Is there no private hospitals? No private HMOs? No private insurance companies? No private schools? No private banks? No private industrial corporations? No private manufacturers?
When I look at america - I see plenty of private ownership. And not just of shoes and guns, but of the means of production.


That there is government oversight does not make that ownership null and void.

It certainly makes the market less free, in a liberal sense, but there is still a market. There is still private ownership and private companies competing on a market for profit.

It seems your definition of private property is so strict, that the mere taxation of it - is such a powerful violation that it fully negates the ownership. It is, however, not a view which is wholly accepted.

2.
Random quotes without context and proper sources is not a verification of anything.

[Aloadae]

So...

Capitalism is a system of private ownership... And to preserve this system of private ownership, we must use a system of government ownership?

Keep going. This keeps getting better.

Yep, a lot of people would say so. It's not uncommon at all.

Some believe that there is weakness in a fully private market economy, which needs to be checked.

You are free to disagree, as any neoliberal would do. But to act like this perspective, in some way, is totally moronic...would be strange, since there are plenty of people during the last 200 years of national economic studies endorsing it. In different ways, for sure, but still...the concept of using government ownership/oversight to complement the market forces, is not an absurd notion.

[Nathan K.]

"Controls and regulations" is a restriction of the free market, yes.
But is there no private ownership in the fields you mention?
Is there no private hospitals? No private HMOs? No private insurance companies? No private schools? No private banks? No private industrial corporations? No private manufacturers?
When I look at america - I see plenty of private ownership.

No. There is no private ownership. Let's dissect the term.

Private: belonging to some particular person

Ownership: legal right of possession

So, considering these definitions, private ownership is a legal right of possession which belongs to a particular person.

How exactly does one have ownership over something if an entirely different entity from himself has sole control over how that thing is created, used, and distributed? That if you fail to abide by these rules on how you should manage "your" property, you will face fines if you cooperate and physical detention and death if you continue to use "your" property as you see fit.

And not just of shoes and guns, but of the means of production.

This statement fails because you do not to consider the greatest of productive means: the right to produce.

The government assumes the authority to decide who can and cannot engage in production and the means in which they are allowed to produce. This leads to artificial monopolies. The rich are able to afford the extravagant expenses necessary to comply with government's taxes and regulations. Your average fellow hoping to start a small business is SOL. You will also find that the top "private" companies in each service they deem crucial to the infrastructure are funded through subsidies and controlled by the government.

That there is government oversight does not make that ownership null and void.

It does.

It certainly makes the market less free, in a liberal sense, but there is still a market. There is still private ownership and private companies competing on a market for profit.

It doesn't just make the market less free, it truly destroys it. When the government tries its hand at offering a service, it does so without any oversight. It does not operate with a profit motive, so it doesn't try to improve itself. It runs off of the money it has robbed from the people, so it cannot go bankrupt.

It destroys the market by offering free or cheaper alternatives to the products and services of businesses in the private sector. This means that many businesses will be destroyed, and potential competitors will never arise. Sure, in some industries private businesses will still compete (when actually allowed by law), but this will benefit only those who can afford the luxury prices. The poor must use the stagnant, poorly run government substitute because it pushes out lower-priced competitors. You can't compete with "free".

Look at the industries that they DON'T control because they CAN'T. Technology... The Internet... They are moving at light speed and dominating the economic landscape. That is what a free market can do. Compare them to markets that are tightly controlled.

It seems your definition of private property is so strict, that the mere taxation of it - is such a powerful violation that it fully negates the ownership. It is, however, not a view which is wholly accepted.

And look at how perfectly the world is running.

You are free to disagree, as any neoliberal would do. But to act like this perspective, in some way, is totally moronic...would be strange, since there are plenty of people during the last 200 years of national economic studies endorsing it.

Plenty of people during the last 200 years of notional economic studies are morons.

Appeal to authority much?

In different ways, for sure, but still...the concept of using government ownership/oversight to complement the market forces, is not an absurd notion.

Not only is it absurd, it has been proven to be a disaster for all of humanity.

[Nathan K.]

Excuse me, I missed this part...

Random quotes without context and proper sources is not a verification of anything.

Nice little deflection there.

The quotes in those videos aren't difficult to understand.

Here's my favorite:

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." - David Rockefeller


Oh? You want sources? How about this:

http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-David-...id+rockefeller

That's Rockefeller's autobiography titled "Memoirs". You'll find that quote on page 405.

Happy reading.

[Kurzy]

Read "Proofs of a Conspiracy" by John Robison, published in 1798.

www.omnicbc.com carries it.

I am proud to be known to the world as the founder of the Illuminati

By establishing reading societies, and subscription libraries, and taking these under our direction, and supplying them through our labors, we may turn the public mind which way we will.

We must win the common people in every corner. This will be obtained chiefly by means of the schools; and by open, hearty behavior, show condescension, popularity, and toleration of their prejudices, which we shall at leisure root out and dispel.

For the Order wishes to be secret, and to work in silence, for thus it is better secured from the oppression of the ruling powers, and because this secrecy gives a greater zest to the whole.

Do you realize sufficiently what it means to rule—to rule in a secret society? Not only over the lesser or more important of the populace, but over the best of men, over men of all ranks, nations, and religions, to rule without external force, to unite them indissolubly, to breathe one spirit and soul into them, men distributed over all parts of the world?

The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always concealed by another name, and another occupation. None is fitter than the lower degrees of Freemasonry; the public is accustomed to it, expects little from it, and therefore takes little notice of it. Next to this, the form of a learned or literary society is best suited to our purpose, and had Freemasonry not existed, this cover would have been employed; and it may be much more than a cover, it may be a powerful engine in our hands. … A Literary Society is the most proper form for the introduction of our Order into any state where we are yet strangers.

[Aloadae]

Well, it seems we have different view on how oversight influences ownership.

I find your description of "destroying the market", aswell as "a disaster for all of humanity" a huge over-simplification. Even from a neo-liberal perspective.

Ooh...I didn't really appeal to authority, I was simply saying that people can disagree with eachother on economic issues without being "morrons". If one claims that the followers of a widely popular economic theory, in both academic and political circles, are all lacking intellect...I would consider that another huge over-simplification.



Concerning the quotes.
"Deflection"? If you show me a youtube-clip with a shitload of quotes, each quote without further comment, source or its original context - of course that clip will be of very limited value from a scientific standpoint.

Your favorite quote is a good example of a quote taken out of one context and put into another. I couldn't find a version of the book online, so I wasn't able to read the chapter or the context in which appear - so, the "happy reading" was quite short.
Naturally, for a believer in the NWO/Illuminati, they will see this as shocking admission.

To me, the quote says the following:
- "Political extremists", which Rockefeller obviously disagrees with, since this is a negative label, are attacking the Rockefeller-family for their influence in American politic/economics
- Some people claim he is part of a "cabal" working against the US
- Rockefeller proudly admits that he is working for a more "integrated global political and economic" community. And that he is working with other people to achieve that.


This is not a proof that there is a NWO.
This is not some startling revelation.

Rockefeller is a capitalist who makes a lot of profit from abroad. It's quite natural that he will have an international perspective on economy and making money. And in a political climate which allows him to do so. With as little taxation as possible, just like you prefer.

It is of course possible to intepret it as "I stand guilty [of being a part of] a secret cabal." Especially if you're looking for that connection.

However, when choosing between to alternatives, I prefer the one which is the most likely.
So, what are the alternative interpretations of what Rockefeller says:

1. He admits to being part of a secret cabal, with the meaning of a small, hidden, secret, clearly defined organization, with mystical/satanic/kabbalistic ideas, which holds close to absolute power over the world, but conspires to bring it together under an obvious political and military dictatorship.
2. He admits to being part of a movement of globalists who wants to open up the world markets to his financial interests.

I would consider the two alternatives. And realize two things:
- "2." is more likely
- "1." has several very strong assertions, with farreaching implications on the understanding on how the political, economic and intellectual world functions. The wider the claim, the stronger is the need for evidence.

That evidence is not to be found. Ergo = 2


But - let's say it is "1".
If you can take one qoute from his memoirs, that seems to suggest something to you. Would you be able to dispute all the other quotes one can make, that does not suggest that he goes to secret kabbal-meetings every other weekend?




Concerning Weishaupt, Robison and the bavarian illuminati.



The fact that there was a secret society, with a certain name, a couple of hundred years ago - who tried to influence society, does not mean that they know control the world.


I would also have a hard time convincing myself that Robison, with his limited sources at the time, could be considered a relevant historian with todays standards.
Most historians today would realize how careful you have to be when assessing books that are several hundred years old, and tries to give an account of an historical event...with very limited source material.

And in being careful of putting to much value into them, also be a bit careful of drawing farreaching political conclusions from them. That would be my advice.

[Matt Hester]

Is this thread a troll?
Back to the topic, there is nothing wrong with a ban on military style assault rifles, in my opion. You don't need them for self defense or for hunting.

[Kurzy]

The new world order is the old world order. The conspiracy is thousands of years old. You're not fooling anyone with you r long winded posts. Simply google search "NWO quotes" to find a multitude of elite cabal members explicitly stating that there is a new order.

Research Monarch Programming
Research the Franklin cover-up
Research the Tavistock institute of human relations
Research the Fabian Society

Do some fucking research.