| | | The socialist left surrendered... agreed to kill the unions and shift jobs to offshore for the cheap labor in China... still a win "politically" as that supported socialism growing in power offshore... although not understanding the shift in branding occurring there... ?
That is naked capitalism.. no social commitment or idea of the public good .. We have many examples in the world today that disprove that fallacy ...
Which, of course, is why you'll never see any politician or public figure admit that they are in favor of "naked capitalism"... but, even when advocating policies that are nothing but that, will condition the PR with platitudes, such as calling it "free market capitalism," intended to deflect from and blunt the impact of allowing an undiluted awareness... But, that still misses the key points of relevance...
(Naked) Capitalism is perfectly comfortable using communism, or socialism in its competing brands, in fostering its ends... There's nothing in the Capitalist Handbook that says anything about any brand of politics being important in the least ? All of them are just "elements in the landscape" that condition means without mattering a whit in relation to ends. That being one point...
The other that matters... that is ALWAYS ignored, by everyone... is not a point of conflict between capitalism, communism, or socialism (and its competing brands)... but an common and inherently shared set of [Euro-myopic-centric] values that all of them are based in... because, intellectually, at the root... there's not really much of a philosophical difference between them. The differences... are not fundamental... but, boil down to the minor in squabbling over "who gets to be in charge"... [with or without a hat tip to "democracy" while agreeing on suppressing awareness of frauds subverting it]... whether in the formal leadership of nation-states, [and, ignoring the anarchists pipe dreams of a "free" society existing without leadership] or in the informal "too rich to care about it" leadership of $ otherwise [as WEF, et al, etc.]
Politics, money and power... have a relationship... its just not what you're told it is...
The below from this link:
quora.com
Conspiracy - Wikiquote
Attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 - 1812) mostly with the date 1790, the year before the establishment of the First Bank of the United States.
No primary source for this is known and the earliest attribution to him known is:
“In the present critical stage of American development I would call your attention to the following maxim of the " money lenders " of the Old World : "Let us control the money of a country, and we care not who makes its laws." Those who favor the continuance of banks of issue in this country are to be classified in history with John Sherman and Nelson W. Aldrich and the money power.”
by T.C. Daniel, 1857 - 1923 ; letter to President W. Wilson, May 8, 1913; reported in his statement for the joint hearings before the subcommittees of the Committees on Banking and Currency of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, charged with the investigation of rural credits, Sixty-third Congress, second session, part 1, pp. 764, February 16, 1914;
Daniel was the author of Real Money versus Bank Credit as a Substitute for Money, 1911, and of The High Cost of Living: Cause — Remedy, 1912 ; further in the statement pp 771 he quoted:
"Let us control the money of a country and we care not who makes its laws." This is the maxim of the house of Rothschilds, and is the foundation principle of European banks.
This quote was used in The Magazine of Wall Street and Business Analyst(November 10, 1934 p.67) and in Money Creators (1935) by Gertrude M. Coogan.
So, "no difference between the two parties" popular as a saying now... which I'm expanding a bit to make the point that its not only true of local concern within a country... but is generally true that "competing brands of socialism" are what is presented to us, now, as "the only choice there is to be made"...
Which, of course, is not true... although it is true that there is no conflict, or none that matters to those in charge, between our selecting either brand A or brand B of the choices they're offering you... which is as true of choosing between Democrats or Republicans in the U.S., as it is true of selecting between the U.S. or China, or Russia... as "the leader of the [not so free] world"...
You naturally end up with crazy political contretemps... like that in the State of the Union recently... where:
First, after grandstanding in house hearings over the last little while... with Republicans loudly chest thumping and attacking socialism and parading socialists (Maxine Waters and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) for social ridicule... challenging them to admit to being socialists, reading quotes from them on prior occasions...
Then, in the State of the Union, Biden claiming the Republicans are conspiring to eliminate [the deeply socialist programs] of Social Security, Medicaid... the Republicans are lured into performing stupid pol theatrics in loudly proclaiming each of themselves to be just as socialist as the next guy...
Most of them wouldn't begin to understand any of this discussion we're having... and, particularly, appear to be so totally unaware... lack situational awareness to the degree... that they fail to understand the situation, completely... as the bit of theater above demonstrated to anyone who does understand it...
We're not allowed to "be" socialists... but, we're also not allowed to choose anything but socialism...
So, yeah... they're "controlled opposition"... whose role is to enable... not really contest... the drift in growing state power and control, which is intimately tied to extending "central control schemes" generally, etc.
And, that's why they hate Trump [as they did Reagan] so passionately... because he's unwilling to cooperate and play that game with them... [whether as due to simple conflict over who is in control, or as real conflict over socialist ideology, still being not at all clear.] And similarly, that's why they went so ballistic when the Republican Party suddenly started getting captured by the "Tea Party"... because... they are not socialists, and DO understand all of these issues... [or, did until they got infiltrated, bought off, co-opted, "controlled" and subsumed into the Party... in control of it, now, leaving only a few remnants of Romney like RINO's unrepentant and holding out, advocating for more a flagrantly obvious and less contentious surrender... while sticking heads in the sand to pretend people don't "get it" as much as they do, that that's what's happening].
Still leaves us to discuss "the larger common element" that really drives the point... re "no difference between them"... whether considering American political parties or competing brands of socialism.
But, the intended result of that arrangement, still... is to ensure your choices are limited to either Brand A or Brand B... tolerating change only within limits that don't threaten "them"... while each brand of products which are on offer are one or the other of their wholly owned subsidiaries... Coke, or Diet Coke... no Pepsi... and no chips... with "no soup for you"... if you complain [with apologies to Saturday Night Live and Seinfeld.]
And, the rest... is that conflict that is created, to manage and exploit you for their profit... and to enable "changes" in result of that effort, with winners and losers, only in that degree that it might well matter to you... but, really won't matter at all to them...
The only functional alternative to communism, socialism in its competing brands, and capitalism... is what ?
And... why are the others "the same"... while the only real alternative is the only one there is that's fundamentally different ?
|
|
