all 119 comments

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (122 children)

soros a big time capitalist, does this for money. Conservadems focus on social issues to distract from things like leftwing economic policies and actual socialism.

If we fixed inequality in the economy with socialist economic polcies, black people wouldn't be so poor and they would commit less crimes and then white people wouldn't avoid them so much and then they would recognize their common enemy, the rich.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (104 children)

SOCALISIM IS STUPID. WE WOULD BE ALL DED

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (100 children)

You are confusing socialism with communism. There has been a huge psyop to conflate these two opposite words.

If they were the same, why did the National Socialists fight the Communists in World War II? Anybody with a few working neurons would realize it doesn't make sense to equate or even relate the two.

SOCIALISM is intrinsically tied to CAPITALISM. SOCIALISM is what keeps CAPITALISM civilized. Not enough of it and you have the USA. Too much of it and you have Sweden. Canada used to be a role model for middle-of-the-road socialism.

COMMUNISM is a completely different system, it is devoid of both socialism and capitalism, WHICH GO HAND IN HAND. And yes, it is a stupid, destructive system. Calling out stupidity is fine, but it is much better to do so from an educated perspective.

You've been fed disinfo, sorry.

[–]ua4[S] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (25 children)

ww2 was more about fascism vs communism. hitler idolised mussolini to the end. he also used to say national socialism is socialism done right.

lenin put it plainly: the goal of socialism is communism. this is still true today, the united nations and china think it too. no matter what you think to know.

fascism used to be defined as a political ideology opposing communism in the dictionaries.

and of course socialism is never civilized, just look at the life in the eastern block countries during the cold war, or cuba.

[–]Jesus 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Hitler was pissed off at Mussolini and thought he was an ignorant fool for his military blunders.

I'm glad in Hitler's case we have National Bolsheviks in the US with Swatsika tattoos. Most of them are Jewish pretending to be white supremecists in order to ideologically subvert true nationalism and community. /s

I always say; who gives a flying crap about the president, focus on your community. It starts there.

[–][deleted]  (8 children)

[removed]

    [–]Jesus 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

    /u/useless_aether

    Or

    /u/ua4

    Huh?

    You love to write about Templars.

    How about pick up Solzhenitsyn's book and stop reading memes online. The top commisars in russia were largely Jewish. The lie is that most of the Bolsheviks were Jews; wrong, but the leaders who controlled the Cheka and gulag system were all Jewish rasied in orthodox tradition only to renounce their religosity.

    Some people don't want you to read his book and use sly language to get you not to.

    Such as Solzhenitsyn was an anti-Semite or even better, Solzhenitsyn never said Jews controlled Russia so why read it bigot. The latter is a red herring, the formwr is an ad hominem.

    Good thing we have neoconservative Jews in the US to subvert the constitution even further than what the old republicans did and demolish the twin towers.

    [–]ua4[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

    i can afford to read memes, you don't, since your knowledge is lacking.

    jesuits created the soviet union and used jews as proxies as they always do and did throughout the history. remember this, before you reply to my comments in the future.

    [–]Jesus 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    Whatever you say. Jesuits didn't do 9/11. Likudnik Jews did. For that reason certain Jews can be blamed jsut as Jesuits can for other things.

    [–]Jesus 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    So far this seems clear, but some people try to confuse issues by adding the Jesuits. The theory of Jesuit take-over is indeed called a NWO theory, but mainly by the apologists of the “Freemasons-Jewish bankers” theory. Its goal is to imply that the real danger comes from the Vatican. (This fear sounds really medieval, the Pope does not any more have such power.)

    Likewise there is the Synarchy theory, which proposes that there is a right-wing Nazi group, which tries to take over the world. Both cases, the Jesuits and the Synarchy, are quite pertinent to NWO. It is easy to show that these are not any counterexamples or alternative bad guys, both these theories are connected to the real NWO conspiracy.

    There was the real NWO conspiracy: it was the Freemason plot and it was not any conspiracy theory. The New World means America and the New World Order meant the new social order, that is, the American way, democracy. Freemasons continued their conspiratorial activities from 1770ies to 1870ies. In the 19th century the subversive activity of Freemasons was lead by Memphis and Misraim lodges.

    That seems to point out to Jesuits, but before concluding that the Illuminati had links to Jesuits, let us notice that before 1776 the Society of Jesus had been suppressed in most countries. The first one to suppress them was Portugal in 1759. In some countries Jesuits were allowed to continue (Russia, Prussia and the USA), but in Frankfurt, where the Illuminati was founded, the Society of Jesus was suppressed in 1773 by the Papal order: under pressure Pope Clement XIV was forced to extinguish the society in 1773. There are no indications that Weishaupt belonged to some kind of secret Jesuit order, or that there was such, but he probably did use Jesuit’s organization as a model for the Illuminati structure.

    From the web pages of Freemasonry it appears that Weishaupt only wanted the best of the humanity but the subversive program of the Illuminati is well outlined in the documents that were obtained by the Bavarian police. Because of these documents Illuminati was dissolved by the Bavarian Government in 1784. Illuminati had managed to infiltrate Freemasonry elsewhere. Freemason John Robinson exposed Illuminati’s plans and infiltration to Freemasonry in Proofs of a Conspiracy, 1798, [1] and Masons made an effort to purge Illuminati from their ranks, but they did not succeed.

    The founder of the Jesuit order, Ignatius de Loyola, was pro-converso and pro-Jewish, but he had included into the Jesuit Constitution a rule that from everyone wanting to join Jesuits should be asked if he is a New Christian. If this practice had been done, it had been possible to limit the number of conversos and to know who were conversos, but the practice was not continued. Loyola had converse co-workers, such as Juan Alfonso de Polanco and Jeronimo Nadal. When Loyola died, as the new supreme general was elected a converso, Diego Laynez. His closest men were conversos: Juan Alfonso de Polanco, Jeronimo Nadal and Christobal de Madrid. Laynez still did not allow conversos to become the majority of new admissions, but under the third supreme general, Francisco de Borja (of the family of Pope Alexander VI and Cesare Borgia) the Jesuit Order become to be seen as a Jewish Synagogue. Conversos had made a complete take-over of the Society.

    Whether the problem of conversos was only that they gained power in the Society, or were the conversos also leading the Society in a non-Christian spirit, is not well answered by [8]. It is explained that Palmio thought that New Christians were still Jews and “overly ambitious, insolent, Janus-faced, pretentious, despotic, astute, terrible, greedy for power, and infamous”, and that “the neophytes want to dominate everywhere and this is why the Society is agitated by the tempest of discords and acrimonies”, and that “all their and our evils proceeded from neophytes and especially from those who governed in Rome”.

    “Being children of this world, pompous, cunning, fake, self-seeking, etc.,it is certain that they fit religious life very badly and that it is impossible to maintain union with them. If those of this blood are made superiors, they employ almost all their government in external things: they promote genuine mortification and solid virtues very little and seem to be merchants, seeking first seats and being called rabbis; they are hardly eager to seek perfection that is described in the parts 5 and 6 of the Constitutions; and readily admit others of the same blood who are very unworthy.” [8]

    It is difficult to say how much there is anti-Semitism, how much depends on cultural differences only, but clearly there was an anti-converso lobby in the Society of Jesus and Acquaviva was part of it. If Monita secreta was written before 1596, then it probably was an effort of pro-converso lobby to defame Acquaviva. An inside converse lobby is the most likely origins of Monita Secreta. The main outside enemy of Jesuits was Jansenists, but why would Jansenists need to falsify a document against Jesuits? Later the main opponent of Jesuits was Freemasonry. They could have falsified, but in 1612 Freemasonry did not exist.

    From this I conclude that in the Jesuit NOW, actually the ones involved in it are echoes of the same ones as in the other NWO theories.

    There are few other NWO theories that can be briefly commented. One, proposed by Marvin Antelman [9] and supported by Henry Makov and others, is that Frankists and Sabbateans would be still there somewhere. There still are a few Dönmeh members, a Sabbatean group in Turkey, but Frankists and Sabbatean are not controlling this world, and they never were so numerous. This theory is simply nonsense.

    Now I wonder, sinceVatican 2, how many Kabbalist Jews are new modern Jesuits? That being said, they don't have the power to blow up and demolish the WTC complex killing 3,000 and get away with it. ZIonist Jewish Likundiks did that and they loathe the Vatican and traditional Rome.

    Weishaupt was of Jewish roots, though his parents (or grandparents) had converted. Von Knigge, Weishapt’s Illuminati’s second man, was a co-creator of the Memphis lodges (originally called Philadelphes), which were Freemasonry, known for leftist revolutionary activities. Freemasons were the main opponent of Jesuits and a strong force in suppression of Jesuits. Illuminati infiltrated Freemasonry.

    ~ Jorma; from his blog here: https://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/02/24/jesuits-freemasons-communists-jews-synarchy-same-claims/

    [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Attacks character. Sends link of video which does not prove Jesuits as a whole did 9/11. Uses esoteric symbology with zero sources to prove Jesuits did do 9/11. There is fr better evidence proving Likudniks and neocons did 9/11 than Jesuits who if aligned with the Vatican were totally against the Iraq war.

    [–]magnora7 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah I banned him, because of the nonstop stream of baseless allegations and the fact he won't listen to any counterarguments, and now he is constantly evading bans by making new usernames... what a fun guy.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    according to lenin first you would have a vanguard party lead the country to socialism and then communism. The vanguard party just never freely gave up power, shocking, and became the nomenklatura. Aka oligarchy. Which russia still has. What is communism? Series of decentralized communes. USSR had state capitalism. Very centralized. Same as USA today. The USE, aka european union is similar.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    And National Socialism isn't fascism?

    So you are a disciple of Lenin, and his words are gospel to you. Got it.

    I don't know of any formerly socialist regimes in the Eastern block. I know plenty of communist ones though.

    Looks like you have many wires crossed my dude. Best uncross them if you will talk about this topic.

    Also, don't use Orwellian Newspeak. It's bad. And that's the only language in which the definition of "Socialism" lends an air of truthfulness to your statements. Are you a pro-totalitarian Big Brother surveillance state communist?

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [removed]

      [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Sadit is a place for discussion. As such "right back at ya." is a woefully insufficient response that does not help discussing the matter at hand.

      I have taken each one of your assertions and written a clear response to each. If you wish to refute my responses, please do so, this is how a higher understanding of topics emerges.

      This response of yours benefits nobody.

      [–]magnora7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      He's already been banned, and now he's created other accounts to ban evade which is against site rules

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [removed]

        [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        I have explained my position. You find it condescending. OK whatever. That's not the topic.

        [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        ua4 supports anarco-Capitalism which Lenin would enjoy for it would eventually via easy subversion bring about a centralized communist state run by despots.

        [–]yellow_algebra_31 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

        and of course socialism is never civilized, just look at the life in the eastern block countries during the cold war, or cuba.

        what is/was it like in those places?

        [–]ua4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        after the commies took over a city, it started with executions, followed with land and property confiscation, then jamming families in small city flats that were made by partitioning larger flats from the previous era. only communist party members could be employed as intellectuals (teachers, journalists, engineers, etc). the old, displaced intellectuals were forced in rural areas to do farm work. mandatory 'work actions' (slave labour) to build public infrastructure. mandatory public schools, with indoctrination. suppression of religion. prison camps for political prisoners. the works.

        [–]Jesus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        Peasants worked with the Bolsheviks because they wanted change and had little opportunity under the Tsar. Little did they know most of the commissars were Jews (it wasn't just Trotsky) and were foreign to Russia. The old Bolsheviks would then go unto execute many of the Peasants and live as kings like the Tsar totally in opposition to what the glutonous "never worked in my life" Marx preached. That the lower class would rise to lead. Didn't happen like that. It was just a revenge plot against Orthodoxy and everything Russian.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Indeed, I concur. Also, there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING socialist about that regime. Socialism exists only in capitalist economies, not in communist ones.

        [–][deleted]  (21 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

          Socialism IS good. I have EXTENSIVELY reported on the VAST psy-op to confuse Americans with regard to these matters. You have been disinformed. You think the definition of socialism is the definition of COMMUNISM. Yes, a huge psyop. For about a century.

          By the way, taxes don't pay for things. Taxes exist for one reason only: to keep the people down. Also, joke's on you, I have worked as an economist for over 20 years.

          [–]proc0 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

          You can't have Socialism AND a free society. It's not possible. You are advocating for a Totalitarian nightmare. There is no conspiracy, there is just badly informed people who are emotional and think socialism will help the poor. Thinking you can take care of poor people is patronizing and will only help elect evil people that want to take advantage of the control. We're seeing this literally right now. Look at Oregon segregating black people already because of these socialist thinking bullshit.

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

          Once again, you use the word "socialism" when "Marxist", "Leninist" or "Communist" would be appropriate. What can I tell you, you believe an untrue definition of the word.

          Actual socialism does help the poor. Look at Sweden for most of the XXth century: extremely generous welfare, free healthcare and education, as well as very low unemployment. Look at Canada up until the XXIst century: similar deal. OF COURSE systems break down under corruption. Nobody is denying this. And I am not denying that everything related to Marxism, Leninism, and Communism are absolutely evil. Socialism simply is not any of these things.

          You are using an Orwellian newspeak definition for that word. The enemies of mankind work very hard at changing language in order to change and disable thought processes. Please do not help them by using their words of choice.

          [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          All of these labels come with an ideology and a history associated with it which taints discussion. I personally look at it without the baggage of any label. In my opinion, it is best to learn from the full scope of history and culture. In my opinion, regardless of what label you put on it, people should have a proportional equity over the ownership of the means of production depending on their contribution. State capitalism is a failure, that is basically what "communism" means and I'm not in favor of giving people handouts or stealing from them (i.e. taxes). Ideally, it would be nice if you owned a portion of the company you worked for depending on your contribution instead of going to work for a monopoly so you can pay taxes for your safety net. In the latter, your labor is always devalued. If you're paid $15/hr, someone makes at least more than that. In the former, you take responsibility for the success or failure of the company and you can consequently form safety nets within a community of your choice. I don't know if that is socialism or capitalism but that is what I think would be right. If I had a company, that is how I would run it.

          [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          I think that would fall under "contributionism". It's a little talked-about system, but it gave us things such as Linux, which is better than both Windows and MacOS, to name only those. And I agree, it's the best system, because it combines the best of capitalism and socialism. The main problem with it is, our economies force greed upon us, and developing main economic activities (i.e. "earning a living") based on such a system is fraught with difficulties.

          You'd have to start a civilization from a blank slate to achieve it. Ultimately, degenerates show up and try to steal other people's earnings.

          [–][deleted]  (12 children)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

            NO. I am talking about that word as it was used BEFORE COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA. Hitler never spoke of socialism as a means to communism, he knew about this whole psy op, disinfo, propaganda. And communist USSR people believed they were under socialism? Makes sense. Do you not know how much the commies used propaganda?

            Capitalism DOES NOT MEAN FREE MARKETS. There are no free markets. That's capitalist propaganda to try and make you swallow the sorry state of western society. This is hugely important. You are trying to defend the results of propaganda designed to enslave you and turn the West communist. You don't even realize how close the USA are to becoming all-out communist, do you?

            No, it should be called SOCIALISM because absent drones like you who repeat communist propaganda, THE TERM HAS ALWAYS MEANT THE SAME THING.

            [–][deleted]  (10 children)

            [deleted]

              [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

              Many of the early Socialists were in fact Anarchists and Libertarians. Here, have a read:

              https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/man-paradox-pierre-joseph-proudhon

              [–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

              No, that is why there are different words for each. Anarchism is orthogonal to both. Libertarians and socialist are almost opposing concepts. One is individual freedom the other is top down decision making and centralization of power.

              [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              No. Libertarianism and YOUR psy-op originating, communist-propaganda co-opted definition of the term are almost opposing concepts. Can't you see?

              [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

              Read: The New Rome 18th crntury book. Capitalism is tied to communism as well; foreign communism, and always will be for its "benefits."

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

              You mean the one by Gibbon?

              [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

              No:

              https://www.amazon.com/New-Rome-United-Classic-Reprint/dp/B008L4O9R2

              There's a pdf as well.

              It is markedly prescient but nobody cares to read older books nor books by those who tell you what they plan to do in their own book.

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

              Perfect, I was looking for something good to read. You are a good friend, Jesus. =D

              [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

              'The New Rome.'

              The Manifesto‘s Marx, with his call to proletarians of the world to unite and destroy the bourgeois foundation of European nations (religion, family, property) is like Moses federating bands of uprooted migrants and lead them to the plunder of the cananean cities, and is like the prophets calling for the destruction of the nations.

              What I find fascinating are the direct parallels between Capitalism and Communism, with only the rare exception, on virtually every point. These are ultimately complimentary systems.

              Capitalism was (and is) to the revolutionary United States what Communism was to the revolutionary Soviet Union.

              Not surprisingly, in that light, the hyper-Capitalist New Rome book of 1853, like the Communist Manifesto of 1848, also strongly attacks nationality, but from an artificial "radicalist" individualist (rather than an artificial collectivist) perspective.

              The Capitalist attack upon Europe, and European peoples, is particularly emphasized in the New Rome.

              And for that reason among its prescient authorship should be read.

              ‘…It is the duty of the American party to combat all European traditions which are incompatible with Americanism; but, above all, that of nationality. To vindicate individualism against nationality, is the office of America.’

              The New Rome (1853) – pg 70 – 71

              The [1776 Capitalist American] revolution is the offspring of the only people which is not a nation. A gathering of all the exiles of the world -and an exile is a man deprived of his nationality, rejected by his nation- an assemblage whose spring of action was disgust at the national cruelties which they had fled; a convocation from all the corners of the world for conscience sake, for the preservation of this individual sovereignty against the encroachments of national traditions; a horde of emigrants who knew nationality in the guise of national poverty; America was, by force of circumstances, the rendezvous of all to whom nationality had been the source of all their sufferings.

              (cont...)
              

              Nations, we have seen, are unions based upon community of speech; this the Americans renounced, in favor of a union based upon a unity of thought; and thus fell nationality, and arose the republic. The native Americans partly have been forced to doff the European part of their title; and they have done wisely. It is the duty of the American party to combat all European traditions which are incompatible with Americanism; but, above all, that of nationality. To vindicate individualism against nationality, is the office of America. This is, at the same time, the whole force and scope of the revolution; thus, the revolution which arose in and with America, must for ever return to it; and America, which began in revolution, must live in it, and end with it. When the dominion of nationality is crushed, and the sovereignty of the individual is attained, everywhere and everyhow, the missions of the [Capitalist] revolution and of America will both be accomplished.

              Ask yourself how Russia and Multilateralism runs? Is it communist, Marxist, or something else? The Neocons were certainly originally Trotskyites ie. the Old Bolsheviks that now live currently in NY or had lived in NY, the capital of global finance, before they took Schiff's and Loeb's banker money in hand and started a revolution in Russia for an imperial powers agenda. That imperial power being Germany and the US. These Bolsheviks were always foreign to Russia and they destroyed Tsarist Russia, which was never a pedestal of freedom and happiness anyway. For they would not be able to rile up the peasants for their cause before executing them if it wasn't so.

              Now, these old Bolsheviks are here in the US, to spread 'democracy abroad' ie. fake democracy in neology only. They appear to be pushing the global revolution agenda as Trotsky intended but in this case using democracy as its cover.

              Which Jews were persecuted in Bolshevik Russia? The Chabad-Lubavitch community. Zionists were too. Communist apostate Jews for the Bolsheviks eventually murdered many of them but for four years after the foreign revolution were indecisive on what do because they believed these Jews to be one of their own. Trump, Netanyahu and Putin have their own Chabad rabbis. So, then ask yourself why Alexander's book '200 Years Together' now on samisdat.info for all to read, which exposes the origins of Zionism and Judeo-Russian relations is censored in the US from publication by US publishers?

              Putin literally stated that 80% of the Bolsheviks in early Bolshevik Russia were Jewish. Why would he state this? He then goes unto show his appreciation for Stalin. In fact, Russia Today, has plenty of good documentaries they broadcast by third parties not affiliated with the state, but I recently saw one on them about the film industry and its journalist couldn't help but praise Stalin for all he did. They even have holidays in Russia concerning Stalin.

              I believe the reason why the book is banned in the west is because the Bolsheviks are in the US, and once you understand how authoritarians and corporations can bestow their will on communism and capitalism, both become inseparable.

              Capitalism breeds invidiualism and eventually radical individualism if not kept in check—to spread and demoralize. Which would explain why the Chabad movement, once stationed in socialit Kibbutz's is very powerful in the US, being the backbone of Kushner and company but whilst at the same time, the geopolitical goal of the neoconservative doctrine, or the new Trotskyite doctrine is utilized in its full capacity.

              This video, named the Hans Habe project illustrates just how screwed the US was before it was and after it was founded.

              Keep in the back of your mind Truth Inc. and corporations when you watch this video.

              https://invidio.us/watch?v=2U_yxtjcrd4 B

              The New Rome also predicts the World Wars and Cold War.

              [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

              Oh I agree. I am not one to call the unbridled, savage capitalism from the USA as being wholly different from the communism of the USSR: Both redistribute the fruit of the labor of the masses into the hands of a chosen few. Only the apparent method of "choosing", as if there were such a thing, these few, differs: one is pseudo-economic and the other is political. But in the end, they are THE SAME PROCESS. I fully agree and have observed this many times, only to be called a commie, which as you know is as far from the truth as anything can be.

              Anyway, capitalism CAN be tempered by socialism, which communism cannot. Communism is unerringly and absolutely totalitarian. Capitalism, when correctly tempered by appropriate socialism, through a (an ideally direct) democratic process, can yield impressive results that approximate the theoretical framework pushed upon unsuspecting students in business schools: "Hierarchies of competence dictate the outcomes of businesses and populations." Of course, absent DIRECT democracy, power hoards itself and this delicate balance breaks down over time.

              And even with direct democracy, external factors can come and ruin this most beautiful of socioeconomic systems. Just ask Colonel Gaddafi, may he rest in peace. Oh, and before you say he was a brutal murderer, I reiterate: NOBODY ever reaches and retains the heights of political power without blood on their hands.

              [–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

              I volunteered for a farmer co-op and I have to say small local communitarianism/utilitarianism has many socialsit parallels. However, I don't believe a corrupt state should control the means of production and your labor. But I believe that is socialism def. wrongly.

              Public lands are a very interesting concept. Now everything is privatised and bought off. Land use to be a right under allodial title and God's Law, now it is based on financialization and privitisation.

              [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              NOBODY ever reaches and retains the heights of political power without blood on their hands.

              Emphasis on Political.

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

              Can't find the pdf anywhere. This book should be free, it's over 100 years old.

              [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              Thank you!! :-)

              [–]sproketboy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

              "The goal of socialism is communism." - Vladimir Lenin

              You should learn history. You're confusing socialism with social programs paid for by wealth generated by market capitalism.

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

              Ah, so your reference on the topic is the main commie. You must be a communist, obviously. Otherwise you woudln't quote their first major leader, a bit like a Satanist doesn't quote Jesus Christ. Correct?

              I am not confusing anything. As I wrote before, the definition of "Socialism" that you believe in is the product of a vast Bolshevik psy-op to co-opt that one word and make people like you unable to think straight about economics. Think about it: why have the word "socialism" when there is already "Marxist", "Leninist", "Communist" with essentially the same definition? Language is being tampered with, and the result is your inability to think about these matters with the flexibility of an agile mind, because a huge blind spot has been cultivated in your mind at the place where the word "socialism" used to be. Yes, Socialism includes programs for keeping the population safe and happy. You know, a safe and happy SOCIety. That is where the word "Socialism" comes from.

              Please quote more dirty commies, I always get a good laugh out of their lies.

              [–]sproketboy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

              Ouch. The amount of projection is amazing. Let's spend all day arguing about word definitions.

              [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

              Word definitions are important: they allow communication. Also, communication is the nature of the activity that visiting this website represents. Why are we here, if not to communicate?

              Moreover, if somebody has spent huge time and effort to surrepticiously change the meaning of some words, isn't it worthwhile to look into that? Why are they doing this? Have you read 1984 by George Orwell? That book illustrates perfectly how changing language changes thought processes.

              But lastly and most importantly, quoting deluded, lying scumbag commies as any kind of source of information seems like a thoroughly losing proposition. Of course Marx and Lenin would lie to further their sick agenda. They got 60 million killed, what's a lie?

              [–]sproketboy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

              They got 60 million killed, what's a lie?

              Which is why I don't like people equating "Socialism" with western democracies that have social programs.

              [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

              Because Lenin used the word "Socialism" to describe his horror when the word had never meant anything close to being related to what he perpetrated on the people of Russia? That makes the word a dirty one, and justifies lobotomizing your ability to think the full spectrum of socioeconomic thought? You don't see how much of a communist puppet that makes you?

              [–]sproketboy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

              He basically invented the word you clown.

              [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

              Socialism is the belief that you can fix inequality with government controlled distribution of wealth. Meaning that if I produce something I don't get to keep it, intlstead it is divided up and given to everyone. But this can not, and does not work. One reason it can't work is because people have different needs and wants. So even equal disbursement is seen as unequal by socialists. So instead you get equity disbursements, based on subjective determinations of who deserves how much. Which inevitably gets gamed. Another problem is that people don't use resources equally. Some people squander what they have while others save. Inequality is never reached. So inevitably the same people who demanded socialism to cure inequality start to demand communism. Because communism has the exact same belief (that government control and disbursement can fix inequality) except to a stricter degree.

              Socialism absoluty is Communism lite.

              [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

              You have been bamboozled. PROFIT on the corporate level emerges from ONE phenomenon only: UNDERPAID WORKERS. If workers are paid the full value of their work, and the owner of the corporation earns the fair value of his contribution, THERE IS NOTHING LEFT, i.e. no profit.

              The "big shot" CEO playing golf with regulators of their industry isn't earning anything: he's stealing his "earnings" from the workers by underpaying them. The VPs creating makework for their prestige and to make their subordinates look busy so they can justify bigger budgets next year are also creating more waste than value.

              What you fail to understand is that in capitalist economies, THERE IS ONLY ONE MARKET WITH PERFECT COMPETITION: the labor market. Each worker is pit against all the other workers (in a geographical area, within a sphere of competence) for which one will do more for less. As a result of this, people create more and more value and are paid less and less. WHERE DO YOU THINK the massive inequality and iniquity in the current economy comes from? Fairy dust?

              No. Look at the inflation-adjusted, per household income over the last 53 years: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/images/content_image/data/07/07ff29d2e2e637e5c74515d2282051bc.png

              So, it grew from about $48,000 to $63,500 in 60 years. Not very much, correct? Now realize that BACK IN 1967, ONLY ONE PERSON PER HOUSEHOLD WORKED. In 2019, there are almost two income earners per household, so in reality, INCOME IS GOING DOWN. And that's adjusted for OFFICIAL INFLATION NUMBERS which, if you know anything real about economics, you know these numbers are VASTLY UNDERSESTIMATED over the last 20 years. So in all likelihood, real median household income is going DOWN while DOUBLING the number of workers per household. That's how great capitalism without actual socialism is.

              Socialism isn't what you think. The word has been co-opted by communists to propagandize people like you and lobotomize your ability for critical economic thought. Your definition of socialism is essentially COMMUNISM. Actual socialism, such as in Sweden, France, the UK and Canada of the 20th century (it's vanishing now, everywhere) ensures that everybody's survival isn't threatened by random economic events. This cuts down on crime, increases population satisfaction and - GASP! - doesn't significantly increase welfare recipients. Yes, even in Sweden where on social security you get a full 70% of a middle-class income, Swedes don't stay on it any longer than absolutely necessary, because they are (or "were", remember, it's vanishing) proud and productive members of society who wouldn't dream of stooping low enough to sit on their fat asses collecting welfare.

              I would educate you some more, but I have things to do. Please ask more questions about what you don't understand about this topic, I will come back later. It is my pleasure to educate.

              [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

              PROFIT on the corporate level emerges from ONE phenomenon only: UNDERPAID WORKERS

              This belief emerges from a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between employer and employee. Just like when you hire a plumber to install a toilet this does not mean he owns part of the toilet relative to his contribution in it being there; in the same way the workers do not own the products of a factory. In fact trying to structure society on that absurd notion is untenable. You absolutely can not calculate everyone's contribution, not just because there are too many factors, but also because value added is a subjective and ever changing quantity. There is a reason that people who make this claim never ever build factories, these people lack sufficient understanding of reality to make a factory function.

              THERE IS ONLY ONE MARKET WITH PERFECT COMPETITION: the labor market

              This just isn't true. Unions exist. Competence is not easily measurable. Worker value comes from thousands of factors including personality traits. Nepotism exists. Employers are not all knowing, and this ignorance prevents and efficient market, and an inefficient market is not competitive. All of these individually disprove your claim, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

              That's how great capitalism without actual socialism is.

              There is definitely a conversation to be had about the growing income gap between the rich and the poor, but beyond identifying that a gap exists and is growing you don't seem to understand it at all and yet are making extremely arrogant conclusions about it. That there are problems that can be identified in capitalism is in no way a valid argument for socialism. That is a logical fallacy. If ford cars are unreliable that does not necessarily mean that dodge cars are more reliable; they could very well be less reliable.

              On top of that the income gap is a red herring; meaning that it is a distraction from a far more important factor. What really matters is not the gap but the absolute level of wealth for any given individual. And the data clearly shows that Capitalism raises more people out of poverty and creates more wealth for the working poor than any other system. Communism certainly makes everyone equal; equally poor. That should not be a goal.

              Socialism isn't what you think.

              Oh, of course. It is whatever you say it is despite all the literature contradicting you. Despite the fact that you can't even articulate a definition of it and rely on cherry picking some policy that you think is working and saying: see it's something like this and since my example works anything I propose and call socialism will therefore also work. If you want to advocate for a particular policy then propose that and lets have a discussion on that particular policy. Don't push socialism as a concept, claiming it is only this one policy you like, then when some fool accepts your nonsensical argument and agrees to socialism you bring in a slew of other policies that you will claim fall under socialism. Social safety nets are a part of socialism, but socialism is not a social safety net. You got it ass backwards.

              I would educate you some more

              Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance. But I will play along and ask away. Why do socialists always need to steal the means of production and never create it? After all, under capitalism everything socialists advocate for is allowed. Workers can own the factory. Worker owned factories can set up welfare systems. If you believe in it then live it. Instead socialist are always trying to use force to take wealth away from others and redistribute it to themselves. The motivation is clear, and it clearly contradicts the rhetoric.

              [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              This belief emerges from a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between employer and employee. Just like when you hire a plumber to install a toilet this does not mean he owns part of the toilet relative to his contribution in it being there; in the same way the workers do not own the products of a factory. In fact trying to structure society on that absurd notion is untenable. You absolutely can not calculate everyone's contribution, not just because there are too many factors, but also because value added is a subjective and ever changing quantity. There is a reason that people who make this claim never ever build factories, these people lack sufficient understanding of reality to make a factory function.

              There is no need to CALCULATE anything. It's a simple fact. And you state that every economist lacks sufficient understanding of reality to make a factory function. I beg to differ. You don't seem to know economics or economists very well. Some of us are smart people.

              THERE IS ONLY ONE MARKET WITH PERFECT COMPETITION: the labor market

              This just isn't true. Unions exist. Competence is not easily measurable. Worker value comes from thousands of factors including personality traits. Nepotism exists. Employers are not all knowing, and this ignorance prevents and efficient market, and an inefficient market is not competitive. All of these individually disprove your claim, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

              The existence of unions has nothing to do with my claim. And again worker value DOES NOT NEED TO BE MEASURED. Nepotism exists but not in the LABOR market. It exists for choice executive functions a lot more than rank and file LABOR. I also did not state that all aspects of the labor market are always only in perfect competition, only that it is the only market in which this occurs to a significant degree. That you lack the ability to understand this does not disprove it.

              There is definitely a conversation to be had about the growing income gap between the rich and the poor, but beyond identifying that a gap exists and is growing you don't seem to understand it at all and yet are making extremely arrogant conclusions about it. That there are problems that can be identified in capitalism is in no way a valid argument for socialism. That is a logical fallacy. If ford cars are unreliable that does not necessarily mean that dodge cars are more reliable; they could very well be less reliable.

              This statement means absolutely nothing. As an economist I am fully qualified to make the statement I make, and replying meaningless platitudes does nothing to bolster your (is there one?) counter-argument.

              On top of that the income gap is a red herring; meaning that it is a distraction from a far more important factor. What really matters is not the gap but the absolute level of wealth for any given individual. And the data clearly shows that Capitalism raises more people out of poverty and creates more wealth for the working poor than any other system. Communism certainly makes everyone equal; equally poor. That should not be a goal.

              You still think socialism and communism are related if not the same. You aren't qualified to talk about these things. You speak out of ignorance and disinformation. It does not paint you in a very good light. Please educate yourself more.

              Oh, of course. It is whatever you say it is despite all the literature contradicting you. Despite the fact that you can't even articulate a definition of it and rely on cherry picking some policy that you think is working and saying: see it's something like this and since my example works anything I propose and call socialism will therefore also work. If you want to advocate for a particular policy then propose that and lets have a discussion on that particular policy. Don't push socialism as a concept, claiming it is only this one policy you like, then when some fool accepts your nonsensical argument and agrees to socialism you bring in a slew of other policies that you will claim fall under socialism. Social safety nets are a part of socialism, but socialism is not a social safety net. You got it ass backwards.

              You want a definition? Sure:

              Socialism I. Definition Socialism is an economic philosophy based on the need for regulations on capitalism. Unchecked capitalism, most economists agree, can create serious problems in the long term, since short-term personal profit does not motivate companies to take care of infrastructure, the environment, or their workers. Socialists emphasize this fact and argue that only the government can solve the problems created by capitalism. Other economic philosophies generally acknowledge the problem, but advocate other solutions to it, while only a few extremists deny that there is any problem with absolute capitalism.

              Although many people think that socialism and capitalism are completely incompatible systems, the fact is that most developed nations operate on a combination of both. For example, nearly every major city in the developed world has some system of government-run public transportation, such as bus lines or a subway. There are also laws against child labor, unsafe workplaces, and reckless pollution, and government programs that help provide education, food, and healthcare to the poor. All of these are socialist ideas that exist in relative harmony with capitalist economies. Capitalism vs. socialism is a question of balance, not an “either/or” question.

              From: https://philosophyterms.com/socialism

              Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance. But I will play along and ask away. Why do socialists always need to steal the means of production and never create it? After all, under capitalism everything socialists advocate for is allowed. Workers can own the factory. Worker owned factories can set up welfare systems. If you believe in it then live it. Instead socialist are always trying to use force to take wealth away from others and redistribute it to themselves. The motivation is clear, and it clearly contradicts the rhetoric.

              I have stated it before and will state it again: you do not understand what the word "socialism" means. Therefore you equate it with communism, marxism, leninism. These are THREE WHOLE WORDS for basically one idea. Do you seriously think the word "socialism" which came over a century before these other 3 words means THE SAME THING? WHY???? Yes, people have been using them interchangeably AND THAT IS INCORRECT.

              I will repeat: Socialism is ABSOLUTELY tied to capitalism. They work together, hand in hand. There is no capitalist system without some degree of socialism. There is no socialism without there being also a capitalist system at the same place and at the same time. The two are intrinsically, and BY DEFINITION entertwined. There is no contradiction between them. You're thinking of Marxism, Leninism, Communism: all these are contrary to both Capitalism and Socialism. Stop drinking the marxist-leninist kollaid please! It makes you spew lies, propaganda and nonsense.

              And oh my god, you said something true in your last sentence: Social safety nets are part of socialism, but they ARE not the whole of socialism. While being blindingly obvious to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about this topic, I salute the truthfulness of your statement.

              [–]Durlo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

              Socialism is the opposite of capitalism. Socialism is, by definition, a path to communism.

              I do not know where you get your politics but you are in your own world with different definitions of socialism than all the people that proposed and defended socialism.

              What you are doing is equivalent to saying: We need Nazism!!, but not the Nazism you know, Nazism is actually very respectful with jews, very democratic and will fix all our problems...

              [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              We do need nazism. But that's besides the point. Yes, I have denounced the vast and very long lasting psy op by Bolshevik elements to brainwash the masses into thinking that Socialism is the path to Communism. Your reference on this? LENIN HIMSELF. So claiming this as "truth" de facto elevates him to your reference for truth. You are spewing communist disinformation. And so are most English-speaking people. The rest of the world know what's up.

              [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

              well thought out rebuttal

              [–]Gunk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

              Or at least very hungry.

              [–]ua4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              [–]ua4[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

              according to this, soros is a court jew of the jesuit vatican https://www.bitchute.com/video/6hzTmCDidxXn/

              they invented communism after all (see thomas more's utopia and the reductions in paraguay)

              [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

              jesuits are crypto jews and took over vatican long time ago that is true. They didn't create socialism, which existed before Marx, but knew it was a threat to their hegemony so worked to subvert it whenever given a chance, after all revolutions did happen back in 1700s and 1800s so the rich got worried. Thomas More died before Jesuits were started. Revolutions were possible in south america after they had been colonized, much of colonization was done with religious support, jesuit or not. The spanish had made the native polulation slaves, the jesuits with reductions were comparably better.

              [–]ua4[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

              not crypto jews, they are templars, the descendants of gentile, catholic european nobility. the second and third sons, because the primogenitura inherited all the wealth and they had no choice but to join a papal order.

              the sabbatean frankists are crypto jews, historically found in the ottoman empire, balkans, and eastern europe. although there were some marranos that turned into conversos in the iberian peninsula, they mostly moved to turkey to join the sabatteans, joined the outlawed templars as pirates or went to holland.

              [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

              highly doubtful. The question would be is why would descendants of nentile catholic nobility, who need to join a papal order, decide to make up a new thing called society of jesus.

              They don't even deny it:

              Although in the first 30 years of the existence of the Society of Jesus there were many Jesuits who were conversos (Catholic-convert Jews), an anti-converso faction led to the Decree de genere (1593) which proclaimed that either Jewish or Muslim ancestry, no matter how distant, was an insurmountable impediment for admission to the Society of Jesus.[127] This new rule was contrary to the original wishes of Ignatius who "said that he would take it as a special grace from our Lord to come from Jewish lineage".[128] The 16th-century Decree de genere was repealed in 1946.[b]

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Jesus

              [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              Rupert Murdoch is a Catholic ZIonist and he grew up in a family of a bunch of Orthodox Rabbis.

              There is a schism in teh CAtholic church.

              The 16th-century Decree de genere was repealed in 1946.

              Huh?

              [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              All the evidence illustrates that Jesuits are NOT Templars. The Traditional Jesuit despots were enemies of Freemasonry.

              [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              Chamdish lies.

              [–]bald-janitor 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

              No the rich kikes!

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

              Soros is much more a speculator and manipulator of financial markets than a capitalist.

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

              same thing

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

              Not at all. A capitalist tends to build companies and industries and benefits society to a degree. A speculator and manipulator is purely a parasite.

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

              nah wall st shit runs out economy and would be outlawed if we had socialism

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

              Really. That's impressive, given that there is socialism already in the USA given its capitalist system, and the same goes for Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and dozens more. I would suggest you learn something else than communist propaganda my friend.

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

              you're not making sense, so do you think america is capitalist, or socialist, or what

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

              Both. All countries that are capitalist are also socialist. They are unavoidably, inextricably conjoined.

              Communist countries cannot, BY DEFINITION be socialist. BECAUSE they aren't capitalist.

              I keep telling you, the definition of "socialism" in your brain and most English speakers is false, and the result of an extremely vast bolshevik, communist psy op. BRAINWASHING. And everybody repeats the same thing: "the evil of socialism" while in fact, socialism is ONLY GOOD.

              The name itself says it: It is the contrary of ANTISOCIAL behavior. It benefits people. Often at the expense of corporations. NEVER to the point of making capitalism impracticable however, and ALWAYS in a way that BALANCES the economy between the people and corporations.

              Preventing people from being worked to death then discarded like slaves, child labor, termination without notice after years of faithful service without severance, and such things... ARE ALL SOCIALISM.

              Yes, Lenin and Marx tried co-opting the word to make it stick to their hellish plans and ideas. That doesn't mean these insane maniacs have to be taken at their word. WHY WOULD ANYBODY DO THAT????

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

              settle down kid

              [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              That is a wonderful argument. We should have started with this, so I could begin by admitting myself, Truth and Reality, all 3 of us, beaten by your implacable logic and reasoning.

              [–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              Crony corporatism gets all the welfare they need.

              Missile heads also get all the socialism they need through pooled monies to bomb some brown people.

              [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

              Honestly. I wouldn't mind a revolution for 1 month rounding up and throwing all the 9/11 Likudnik perps in jail but after a fair trial. Then go back to the old republic of ways.

              [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

              I think that's just too mild. I would invoke cosmic law and declare each individual's actions their own full responsibility, i.e. "I was just taking orders" not an excuse. Every single co-conspirator, collaborator, lieutenant, minion, etc would have to bear the full responsibility of their actions. And the same for institutions of financial slavery.

              [–]Wahwah 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

              Is Saidit logo also black in solidarity? :3