It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Greeks who are to poor to pay Taxes will be sent to Labor Camps
page: 7share:
reply to post by pavmas
That is what happens with capitalist systems eventually, they eat up the competition and become monopolies. Instead of a public monopoly that is state owned we have private monopolies. It is STILL CAPITALISM though!
State capitalism is when we have many private monopolies price gouging folks like in the uk. Of course they don't pay enough taxes. They lobby government via bribes. Bribes are not supposed to be disclosed, surely you should know this.
That is what happens with capitalist systems eventually, they eat up the competition and become monopolies. Instead of a public monopoly that is state owned we have private monopolies. It is STILL CAPITALISM though!
State capitalism is when we have many private monopolies price gouging folks like in the uk. Of course they don't pay enough taxes. They lobby government via bribes. Bribes are not supposed to be disclosed, surely you should know this.
Are you even from there? Not true!
My friend is investing there, so it's going to be fine. Easy money - as always.
My friend is investing there, so it's going to be fine. Easy money - as always.
edit on 30-5-2013 by Izak4K because: (no reason
given)
A lot of people seen to think I don't know what communism is.
Let me try and explain where Im coming from.
There has never been a true communist nation in the true concept of communism,
The Communism ideal that we are all equal and no one owns private property etc has never been practiced.
Look at China do you really believe that they are all communist and the same goes for North Korea, Yes it maybe communism for the people that are starving and who have nothing but its not communism for the fat rulers.
The USSR was never communist' we saw that when it broke up all these people in charge took the wealth the gathered and fled.
What Im saying is that the E.U Greece I was on about for now' is no different to the communist (so called) that we have seen in the past ( even though Id admit that no nation has ever been truly communist).
What I am saying is that Greece is using tactics the old USSR used and com Aug in the UK when Universal Credit is introduced then it will be hard to tell apart the UK from the old USSR.
I did a bit of digging and found an article by Dr Vernon Coleman which make explain better what I was trying to put across, he is a Writer and Im a Bricklayer so he may put it in a way that you understand where I was going.
Im saying that they call it capitalism but its only capitalism for some, they call it communism but its only communism for some, in both the money moves from the bottom all the way to the top, and it my mind that makes them both the same just using different names.
This article was written in 2005,
Many people now believe that the EU is, in many critical ways, indistinguishable from the old Soviet Union.
In a speech delivered at the House of Commons in 2002, Vladimir Bukovsky noted the following similarities between the old USSR and the EU. I have paraphrased and expanded on his thoughts below:
1. Anyone who opposes or deviates from the socialist system will be ostracised. For example, when the Austrian people had the temerity to elect `the wrong sort of Government' (it was considered too nationalistic and right wing by the EU) the EU pronounced the new Government unacceptable. With apparent magnanimity, the EU announced that it would `accept' an Italian President elected by the Italian people. All sorts of tricks are used to isolate and marginalise those who opposed the EU. Those questioning the EU are often portrayed as insular and parochial.
2. Like the USSR, the EU is governed by a group of people who appoint one another, are unaccountable to the public, enjoy generous salaries, massive perks and huge pensions, are pretty much above the law and cannot be sacked. The EU, like any committed socialist government, operates without any real feedback from the people, and certainly without any concern for what the people think. The state must always come first. The only people who benefit (as with all socialist and fascist organisations - and the two are, of course, interchangeable) are those who have put themselves and their friends in charge. The workers never really benefit from socialism. The profits of the hard working, the creative and the thrifty are redistributed to the bureaucracy: the lazy, the unthinking and the wasteful.
The central planners (in the case of the USSR they were in Moscow, in the case of the EU they are in Brussels) insist on making all the judgements and decisions but their lack of experience means that they get everything wrong so there are constant shortages and black markets.
State socialism in the EU has not led to affluence, equality and freedom but, effectively, to a one-party political system. (All three main parties in Britain support the EU and the destruction of Britain). The fascist EU has,inevitably, created a massive bureaucracy, heavy-handed secret police, government control of the media and endless secrecy and lies.
The socialist bureaucracy of the EU is run by people who arrogantly believe that they are the only ones who need to know and that they always know best.
3. There was one political party in the USSR (and no opposition) and the same is true of the EU. Political parties which don't support the EU are denied the oxygen of financial support. Politicians who do support the EU can look forward to good jobs (when they retire or leave domestic politics they may, like Neil Kinnock or Chris Patten, get jobs as EU commissioners). The system looks after its own. When the EU constitution was being debated, the main sticking point among delegates was not the sovereignty of their individual nations, or the rights of the voters, but the number of delegates each country would be allowed to send to EU meetings. Each nation's individuality was pushed to one side as irrelevant and inconsequential, in favour of the rights of politicians to attend regular, all expenses paid beanos.
4. Like the USSR, the EU was created with little or no respect for normal democratic principles. Much of what has happened within the EU has happened secretly and without the normal principles of democracy being considered or applied. What has happened over the last few decades has happened largely in secret.
5. Instead of information about the EU we have been fed a good deal of propaganda. The bureaucrats organise and control people and they try to control the availability of knowledge. The people are always controlled with lies and misinformation. (Today these are known as `spin'.) Anyone who dares to oppose the EU or to promote England is likely to be described as a `racist'. My book England Our England has proved enormously popular with readers (and was, within the first year, reprinted numerous times) but advertisements for the book were banned by a number of publications. Although the book is one of Britain's bestselling books on politics, it has never been reviewed in any national newspaper.
Very few Britons realise exactly what has already happened, how what has happened has already affected their lives and how things will now develop unless we do something very soon. A poll quietly taken for Britain's Foreign Office showed that a quarter of Britons did not know that their country was already a member of the EU. Astonishingly, 7% of Britons thought that the USA was a member. This ignorance isn't unique to Britain. A poll in Germany showed that 31% of the public had never heard of the European Commission.
The bureaucrats realise that until there is more awareness of and interest in what has happened, and what is happening, there are unlikely to be any protests.
6. The former USSR was renowned for its vast number of laws, rules and regulations. But the USSR was nothing compared to the EU. The EC has become a law factory covering everything imaginable and enabling small petty-minded bureaucrats to hound small businesses and flex their puny muscles. One law on fire regulations alone cost UK businesses £8 billion. New regulations have poured out governing every aspect of our lives, and businessmen have been swamped by an avalanche of red tape.
Dairy farmers have been subjected, in the last few years alone, to 1,100 separate, specific new laws. Even teddy bear manufacturers have been targeted.
Huge numbers of new criminal offenses have been listed.
It is true that these new laws have to be debated by MEPs but the debates are managed at a such frenetic rate - with MEPs voting on as many as 400 issues in just 90 minutes - that in practice the laws proposed by the bureaucrats are just nodded through. Speakers in the European Parliament are allowed 90 seconds to read out prepared speeches. And then the voting begins.
There are so many new laws that the British Government cannot study them all. The Council of Ministers cannot even read the new laws which the EU passes. The real power now lies with faceless, nameless, unelected bureaucrats who have no accountability whatsoever.
The unknown bureaucrats in Brussels are so desperate to extend their own power and authority, that they have, through the production of miles and miles of unwanted red tape, effectively destroyed the European economy.
Our special tragedy is that Britain's economy has suffered more than most from these new laws.
The other big European nations (France, Germany and Italy) just ignore the rules they don't like. Both France and Germany have flagrantly broken the rules on government deficits but for these two countries there have been no sanctions, no fines and no penalties. `These are for smaller countries,' said a French Government spokesman with typical gallic arrogance. The French have ignored hundreds of directives relating to the single market (directives which Britain, of course, has obeyed slavishly). Commenting on why he had, like so many other Britons, bought a home in France, Lord Nigel Lawson (former Chancellor) said he'd bought it because it was such a relief to get away from the EU.
Britain, of course, obeys all the rules. And British people and British businessmen pay the ever increasing price.
7. It was a crime for individual countries to talk about quitting the USSR. Indeed, there was no procedure to enable countries to leave the soviet union. The EU is much the same.
8. Corruption usually starts from the bottom and works its way up through the system. In both the USSR and the EU the corruption starts at the top and works its way down. Corruption was systemic in the old USSR and it is systemic in the EU. The EU is riddled with the standard socialist form of corruption where the protagonists live by the motto: `what is yours is mine and what is mine is mine and I will chop your hands off if you try to take it'. This was the popular way of doing things in the USSR. Like the USSR, the EU operates in a way that ensures the redistribution of wealth. In both cases the system means that the wealth is redistributed from the workers to the bureaucrats.
9. Like a pyramid selling scheme the USSR needed to be aggressive and to continue growing in order to stay alive. If it stopped growing it would fail. The EU is the same. It makes absolutely no economic sense for the EU to take in small, poor countries. The countries encouraged to join the EU in 2004 were welcomed for ideological rather than economic reasons. The six original members of the Common Market have slowly become 25. And then how many will there be? The bureaucracy needs to grow to justify its existence and its demands for increasing amounts of money. All bureaucracies like to grow. It is, in part, their raison d'etre. As they grow so they become increasingly important. Assistants can have assistants of their own. Secretaries can have secretaries. The politicians of the existing countries are persuaded that if the EU grows they will have bigger markets. No one bothers about the fact that the new countries which join the EU will want to share in the subsidies which the EU hands out. Countries like the UK, which pay money to be members of the EU, will have to pay more money for even less reason.
The language problems are enormous. In the new EU there are hundreds of translation combinations. The EU now works like a series of Chinese whispers. Speakers in, say, Finnish are translated first into English and then into another language and then into a fourth language.
The new countries coming into the EU have many different cultures and laws. Just how they are going to fit into one superstate is something only the bureaucrats who have planned the whole thing can explain. (And, as always, they aren't talking.)
For example, consider Turkey, one of the new EU proposed members. Under Turkish law, if a rapist marries his victim he can walk free. The basis for this is that nobody would want to marry a girl who is not a virgin and so the rapist is doing the girl a favour.
Turkish law also allows a mother who murders her child to be given a reduced sentence if the baby was born out of wedlock.
Another Turkish law rules that kidnapping a married woman is a greater crime than kidnapping a woman who isn't married.
The Turkish authorities arrested a young journalist simply on suspicion of being linked to a banned political party. For this, she was sentenced to over 12 years in prison.
I mention all this not in criticism but simply to show just how much difference there is between Turkish culture and British culture. And yet the Turks and the British are expected to be citizens of the same 450 million citizen country; supposedly sharing customs, mores and laws. Naturally, all governments want harmonisation to be organised on their own terms.
(The Americans, incidentally, are desperate for Turkey to join the EU. They believe that if this happens it will make it impossible for Bin Laden and others to claim that the EU is another `Christian Superstate'.)
10. In the former USSR the citizens of individual countries were told that they should forget about their former national identities. They should, they were told, consider themselves members of the USSR rather than citizens of Ukraine or Russia. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU superstate.
The EU is intent on destroying and absorbing national states. Britain and England will both disappear completely as the EU superstate develops its identity.
11. The USSR was an ideological dictatorship. That is what the EU is. The aim of the EU is the formation of a state, the preservation of socialism within the state and the expansion of the principles of political correctness. Most political groups which oppose the EU are small, and will remain small, because it is virtually impossible to obtain funding or publicity for any group which opposes the EU.
In the UK there are just three main parties - all of which are supportive of the EU. This is manifestly unfair since it means that a majority of the British population must inevitably remain unrepresented.
Organisations which represent national interests (particularly English interests) are denied power, money and publicity on the grounds that they must be racist. Anyone who supports Britain or England will find themselves branded a racist. (Supporters of Wales and Scotland are never accused of being racist since both these countries will still exist as regions in the new EU superstate.)
12. The USSR had a gulag and so does the EU. The EU has an intellectual gulag; if your views differ from the `approved' views you will find it difficult to get them published.
Naturally, those who disapprove of the EU will find it difficult or impossible to obtain a job working for the EU. Making a speech or writing a book which criticises the EU (or the laws of the EU) may be regarded as a crime if it is considered subversive. (It is, of course, up to the bureaucrats of the EU to decide whether or not something is `subversive'.) One Englishman made the mistake of standing up at a public meeting and defending the rights and freedoms of English country people. As a result of his comments two police officers visited the speaker's home, arrested him (refusing to tell him why) took him to a police station and threw him into a cell.
When five Britons visited Brussels and drove around the city in vehicles which were decorated with posters which called for a referendum on the EU constitution they were arrested for `disturbing public order' and `demonstrating without permission'.
13. Citizens in the old USSR had to carry ID cards. The loss of civil liberties which this entailed used to be regarded with suspicion and some contempt by Western European democracies. In the new EU, citizens are losing their freedom and must carry ID cards. (It is a myth that ID cards contribute anything whatsoever to national security. ID cards always exist for one reason only: to take away the freedoms and civil liberties of the citizens who must carry them.)
It is very easy to lose your freedom, but very difficult to get it back.
14. Officers in the new EU police force have even greater privileges than officers in the much feared KGB. All members of the new EU police force have diplomatic immunity. They can walk into your home, arrest you, beat you up and steal your property and you cannot do a darned thing about it. Now do you believe me when I say that the EU is a fascist organisation?
Taken from Saving England by Vernon Coleman, published by Blue Books. `Saving England' is available from the webshop on this site (and from all other good bookshops whether online or not).
Copyright Vernon Coleman 2005
Let me try and explain where Im coming from.
There has never been a true communist nation in the true concept of communism,
The Communism ideal that we are all equal and no one owns private property etc has never been practiced.
Look at China do you really believe that they are all communist and the same goes for North Korea, Yes it maybe communism for the people that are starving and who have nothing but its not communism for the fat rulers.
The USSR was never communist' we saw that when it broke up all these people in charge took the wealth the gathered and fled.
What Im saying is that the E.U Greece I was on about for now' is no different to the communist (so called) that we have seen in the past ( even though Id admit that no nation has ever been truly communist).
What I am saying is that Greece is using tactics the old USSR used and com Aug in the UK when Universal Credit is introduced then it will be hard to tell apart the UK from the old USSR.
I did a bit of digging and found an article by Dr Vernon Coleman which make explain better what I was trying to put across, he is a Writer and Im a Bricklayer so he may put it in a way that you understand where I was going.
Im saying that they call it capitalism but its only capitalism for some, they call it communism but its only communism for some, in both the money moves from the bottom all the way to the top, and it my mind that makes them both the same just using different names.
This article was written in 2005,
Many people now believe that the EU is, in many critical ways, indistinguishable from the old Soviet Union.
In a speech delivered at the House of Commons in 2002, Vladimir Bukovsky noted the following similarities between the old USSR and the EU. I have paraphrased and expanded on his thoughts below:
1. Anyone who opposes or deviates from the socialist system will be ostracised. For example, when the Austrian people had the temerity to elect `the wrong sort of Government' (it was considered too nationalistic and right wing by the EU) the EU pronounced the new Government unacceptable. With apparent magnanimity, the EU announced that it would `accept' an Italian President elected by the Italian people. All sorts of tricks are used to isolate and marginalise those who opposed the EU. Those questioning the EU are often portrayed as insular and parochial.
2. Like the USSR, the EU is governed by a group of people who appoint one another, are unaccountable to the public, enjoy generous salaries, massive perks and huge pensions, are pretty much above the law and cannot be sacked. The EU, like any committed socialist government, operates without any real feedback from the people, and certainly without any concern for what the people think. The state must always come first. The only people who benefit (as with all socialist and fascist organisations - and the two are, of course, interchangeable) are those who have put themselves and their friends in charge. The workers never really benefit from socialism. The profits of the hard working, the creative and the thrifty are redistributed to the bureaucracy: the lazy, the unthinking and the wasteful.
The central planners (in the case of the USSR they were in Moscow, in the case of the EU they are in Brussels) insist on making all the judgements and decisions but their lack of experience means that they get everything wrong so there are constant shortages and black markets.
State socialism in the EU has not led to affluence, equality and freedom but, effectively, to a one-party political system. (All three main parties in Britain support the EU and the destruction of Britain). The fascist EU has,inevitably, created a massive bureaucracy, heavy-handed secret police, government control of the media and endless secrecy and lies.
The socialist bureaucracy of the EU is run by people who arrogantly believe that they are the only ones who need to know and that they always know best.
3. There was one political party in the USSR (and no opposition) and the same is true of the EU. Political parties which don't support the EU are denied the oxygen of financial support. Politicians who do support the EU can look forward to good jobs (when they retire or leave domestic politics they may, like Neil Kinnock or Chris Patten, get jobs as EU commissioners). The system looks after its own. When the EU constitution was being debated, the main sticking point among delegates was not the sovereignty of their individual nations, or the rights of the voters, but the number of delegates each country would be allowed to send to EU meetings. Each nation's individuality was pushed to one side as irrelevant and inconsequential, in favour of the rights of politicians to attend regular, all expenses paid beanos.
4. Like the USSR, the EU was created with little or no respect for normal democratic principles. Much of what has happened within the EU has happened secretly and without the normal principles of democracy being considered or applied. What has happened over the last few decades has happened largely in secret.
5. Instead of information about the EU we have been fed a good deal of propaganda. The bureaucrats organise and control people and they try to control the availability of knowledge. The people are always controlled with lies and misinformation. (Today these are known as `spin'.) Anyone who dares to oppose the EU or to promote England is likely to be described as a `racist'. My book England Our England has proved enormously popular with readers (and was, within the first year, reprinted numerous times) but advertisements for the book were banned by a number of publications. Although the book is one of Britain's bestselling books on politics, it has never been reviewed in any national newspaper.
Very few Britons realise exactly what has already happened, how what has happened has already affected their lives and how things will now develop unless we do something very soon. A poll quietly taken for Britain's Foreign Office showed that a quarter of Britons did not know that their country was already a member of the EU. Astonishingly, 7% of Britons thought that the USA was a member. This ignorance isn't unique to Britain. A poll in Germany showed that 31% of the public had never heard of the European Commission.
The bureaucrats realise that until there is more awareness of and interest in what has happened, and what is happening, there are unlikely to be any protests.
6. The former USSR was renowned for its vast number of laws, rules and regulations. But the USSR was nothing compared to the EU. The EC has become a law factory covering everything imaginable and enabling small petty-minded bureaucrats to hound small businesses and flex their puny muscles. One law on fire regulations alone cost UK businesses £8 billion. New regulations have poured out governing every aspect of our lives, and businessmen have been swamped by an avalanche of red tape.
Dairy farmers have been subjected, in the last few years alone, to 1,100 separate, specific new laws. Even teddy bear manufacturers have been targeted.
Huge numbers of new criminal offenses have been listed.
It is true that these new laws have to be debated by MEPs but the debates are managed at a such frenetic rate - with MEPs voting on as many as 400 issues in just 90 minutes - that in practice the laws proposed by the bureaucrats are just nodded through. Speakers in the European Parliament are allowed 90 seconds to read out prepared speeches. And then the voting begins.
There are so many new laws that the British Government cannot study them all. The Council of Ministers cannot even read the new laws which the EU passes. The real power now lies with faceless, nameless, unelected bureaucrats who have no accountability whatsoever.
The unknown bureaucrats in Brussels are so desperate to extend their own power and authority, that they have, through the production of miles and miles of unwanted red tape, effectively destroyed the European economy.
Our special tragedy is that Britain's economy has suffered more than most from these new laws.
The other big European nations (France, Germany and Italy) just ignore the rules they don't like. Both France and Germany have flagrantly broken the rules on government deficits but for these two countries there have been no sanctions, no fines and no penalties. `These are for smaller countries,' said a French Government spokesman with typical gallic arrogance. The French have ignored hundreds of directives relating to the single market (directives which Britain, of course, has obeyed slavishly). Commenting on why he had, like so many other Britons, bought a home in France, Lord Nigel Lawson (former Chancellor) said he'd bought it because it was such a relief to get away from the EU.
Britain, of course, obeys all the rules. And British people and British businessmen pay the ever increasing price.
7. It was a crime for individual countries to talk about quitting the USSR. Indeed, there was no procedure to enable countries to leave the soviet union. The EU is much the same.
8. Corruption usually starts from the bottom and works its way up through the system. In both the USSR and the EU the corruption starts at the top and works its way down. Corruption was systemic in the old USSR and it is systemic in the EU. The EU is riddled with the standard socialist form of corruption where the protagonists live by the motto: `what is yours is mine and what is mine is mine and I will chop your hands off if you try to take it'. This was the popular way of doing things in the USSR. Like the USSR, the EU operates in a way that ensures the redistribution of wealth. In both cases the system means that the wealth is redistributed from the workers to the bureaucrats.
9. Like a pyramid selling scheme the USSR needed to be aggressive and to continue growing in order to stay alive. If it stopped growing it would fail. The EU is the same. It makes absolutely no economic sense for the EU to take in small, poor countries. The countries encouraged to join the EU in 2004 were welcomed for ideological rather than economic reasons. The six original members of the Common Market have slowly become 25. And then how many will there be? The bureaucracy needs to grow to justify its existence and its demands for increasing amounts of money. All bureaucracies like to grow. It is, in part, their raison d'etre. As they grow so they become increasingly important. Assistants can have assistants of their own. Secretaries can have secretaries. The politicians of the existing countries are persuaded that if the EU grows they will have bigger markets. No one bothers about the fact that the new countries which join the EU will want to share in the subsidies which the EU hands out. Countries like the UK, which pay money to be members of the EU, will have to pay more money for even less reason.
The language problems are enormous. In the new EU there are hundreds of translation combinations. The EU now works like a series of Chinese whispers. Speakers in, say, Finnish are translated first into English and then into another language and then into a fourth language.
The new countries coming into the EU have many different cultures and laws. Just how they are going to fit into one superstate is something only the bureaucrats who have planned the whole thing can explain. (And, as always, they aren't talking.)
For example, consider Turkey, one of the new EU proposed members. Under Turkish law, if a rapist marries his victim he can walk free. The basis for this is that nobody would want to marry a girl who is not a virgin and so the rapist is doing the girl a favour.
Turkish law also allows a mother who murders her child to be given a reduced sentence if the baby was born out of wedlock.
Another Turkish law rules that kidnapping a married woman is a greater crime than kidnapping a woman who isn't married.
The Turkish authorities arrested a young journalist simply on suspicion of being linked to a banned political party. For this, she was sentenced to over 12 years in prison.
I mention all this not in criticism but simply to show just how much difference there is between Turkish culture and British culture. And yet the Turks and the British are expected to be citizens of the same 450 million citizen country; supposedly sharing customs, mores and laws. Naturally, all governments want harmonisation to be organised on their own terms.
(The Americans, incidentally, are desperate for Turkey to join the EU. They believe that if this happens it will make it impossible for Bin Laden and others to claim that the EU is another `Christian Superstate'.)
10. In the former USSR the citizens of individual countries were told that they should forget about their former national identities. They should, they were told, consider themselves members of the USSR rather than citizens of Ukraine or Russia. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU superstate.
The EU is intent on destroying and absorbing national states. Britain and England will both disappear completely as the EU superstate develops its identity.
11. The USSR was an ideological dictatorship. That is what the EU is. The aim of the EU is the formation of a state, the preservation of socialism within the state and the expansion of the principles of political correctness. Most political groups which oppose the EU are small, and will remain small, because it is virtually impossible to obtain funding or publicity for any group which opposes the EU.
In the UK there are just three main parties - all of which are supportive of the EU. This is manifestly unfair since it means that a majority of the British population must inevitably remain unrepresented.
Organisations which represent national interests (particularly English interests) are denied power, money and publicity on the grounds that they must be racist. Anyone who supports Britain or England will find themselves branded a racist. (Supporters of Wales and Scotland are never accused of being racist since both these countries will still exist as regions in the new EU superstate.)
12. The USSR had a gulag and so does the EU. The EU has an intellectual gulag; if your views differ from the `approved' views you will find it difficult to get them published.
Naturally, those who disapprove of the EU will find it difficult or impossible to obtain a job working for the EU. Making a speech or writing a book which criticises the EU (or the laws of the EU) may be regarded as a crime if it is considered subversive. (It is, of course, up to the bureaucrats of the EU to decide whether or not something is `subversive'.) One Englishman made the mistake of standing up at a public meeting and defending the rights and freedoms of English country people. As a result of his comments two police officers visited the speaker's home, arrested him (refusing to tell him why) took him to a police station and threw him into a cell.
When five Britons visited Brussels and drove around the city in vehicles which were decorated with posters which called for a referendum on the EU constitution they were arrested for `disturbing public order' and `demonstrating without permission'.
13. Citizens in the old USSR had to carry ID cards. The loss of civil liberties which this entailed used to be regarded with suspicion and some contempt by Western European democracies. In the new EU, citizens are losing their freedom and must carry ID cards. (It is a myth that ID cards contribute anything whatsoever to national security. ID cards always exist for one reason only: to take away the freedoms and civil liberties of the citizens who must carry them.)
It is very easy to lose your freedom, but very difficult to get it back.
14. Officers in the new EU police force have even greater privileges than officers in the much feared KGB. All members of the new EU police force have diplomatic immunity. They can walk into your home, arrest you, beat you up and steal your property and you cannot do a darned thing about it. Now do you believe me when I say that the EU is a fascist organisation?
Taken from Saving England by Vernon Coleman, published by Blue Books. `Saving England' is available from the webshop on this site (and from all other good bookshops whether online or not).
Copyright Vernon Coleman 2005
A lot of people seen to think I don't know what communism is.
Let me try and explain where Im coming from.
There has never been a true communist nation in the true concept of communism,
The Communism ideal that we are all equal and no one owns private property etc has never been practiced.
Look at China do you really believe that they are all communist and the same goes for North Korea, Yes it maybe communism for the people that are starving and who have nothing but its not communism for the fat rulers.
The USSR was never communist' we saw that when it broke up all these people in charge took the wealth the gathered and fled.
What Im saying is that the E.U Greece I was on about for now' is no different to the communist (so called) that we have seen in the past ( even though Id admit that no nation has ever been truly communist).
What I am saying is that Greece is using tactics the old USSR used and com Aug in the UK when Universal Credit is introduced then it will be hard to tell apart the UK from the old USSR.
I did a bit of digging and found an article by Dr Vernon Coleman which make explain better what I was trying to put across, he is a Writer and Im a Bricklayer so he may put it in a way that you understand where I was going.
Im saying that they call it capitalism but its only capitalism for some, they call it communism but its only communism for some, in both the money moves from the bottom all the way to the top, and it my mind that makes them both the same just using different names.
This article was written in 2005,
Many people now believe that the EU is, in many critical ways, indistinguishable from the old Soviet Union.
In a speech delivered at the House of Commons in 2002, Vladimir Bukovsky noted the following similarities between the old USSR and the EU. I have paraphrased and expanded on his thoughts below:
1. Anyone who opposes or deviates from the socialist system will be ostracised. For example, when the Austrian people had the temerity to elect `the wrong sort of Government' (it was considered too nationalistic and right wing by the EU) the EU pronounced the new Government unacceptable. With apparent magnanimity, the EU announced that it would `accept' an Italian President elected by the Italian people. All sorts of tricks are used to isolate and marginalise those who opposed the EU. Those questioning the EU are often portrayed as insular and parochial.
2. Like the USSR, the EU is governed by a group of people who appoint one another, are unaccountable to the public, enjoy generous salaries, massive perks and huge pensions, are pretty much above the law and cannot be sacked. The EU, like any committed socialist government, operates without any real feedback from the people, and certainly without any concern for what the people think. The state must always come first. The only people who benefit (as with all socialist and fascist organisations - and the two are, of course, interchangeable) are those who have put themselves and their friends in charge. The workers never really benefit from socialism. The profits of the hard working, the creative and the thrifty are redistributed to the bureaucracy: the lazy, the unthinking and the wasteful.
The central planners (in the case of the USSR they were in Moscow, in the case of the EU they are in Brussels) insist on making all the judgements and decisions but their lack of experience means that they get everything wrong so there are constant shortages and black markets.
State socialism in the EU has not led to affluence, equality and freedom but, effectively, to a one-party political system. (All three main parties in Britain support the EU and the destruction of Britain). The fascist EU has,inevitably, created a massive bureaucracy, heavy-handed secret police, government control of the media and endless secrecy and lies.
The socialist bureaucracy of the EU is run by people who arrogantly believe that they are the only ones who need to know and that they always know best.
3. There was one political party in the USSR (and no opposition) and the same is true of the EU. Political parties which don't support the EU are denied the oxygen of financial support. Politicians who do support the EU can look forward to good jobs (when they retire or leave domestic politics they may, like Neil Kinnock or Chris Patten, get jobs as EU commissioners). The system looks after its own. When the EU constitution was being debated, the main sticking point among delegates was not the sovereignty of their individual nations, or the rights of the voters, but the number of delegates each country would be allowed to send to EU meetings. Each nation's individuality was pushed to one side as irrelevant and inconsequential, in favour of the rights of politicians to attend regular, all expenses paid beanos.
4. Like the USSR, the EU was created with little or no respect for normal democratic principles. Much of what has happened within the EU has happened secretly and without the normal principles of democracy being considered or applied. What has happened over the last few decades has happened largely in secret.
5. Instead of information about the EU we have been fed a good deal of propaganda. The bureaucrats organise and control people and they try to control the availability of knowledge. The people are always controlled with lies and misinformation. (Today these are known as `spin'.) Anyone who dares to oppose the EU or to promote England is likely to be described as a `racist'. My book England Our England has proved enormously popular with readers (and was, within the first year, reprinted numerous times) but advertisements for the book were banned by a number of publications. Although the book is one of Britain's bestselling books on politics, it has never been reviewed in any national newspaper.
Very few Britons realise exactly what has already happened, how what has happened has already affected their lives and how things will now develop unless we do something very soon. A poll quietly taken for Britain's Foreign Office showed that a quarter of Britons did not know that their country was already a member of the EU. Astonishingly, 7% of Britons thought that the USA was a member. This ignorance isn't unique to Britain. A poll in Germany showed that 31% of the public had never heard of the European Commission.
The bureaucrats realise that until there is more awareness of and interest in what has happened, and what is happening, there are unlikely to be any protests.
6. The former USSR was renowned for its vast number of laws, rules and regulations. But the USSR was nothing compared to the EU. The EC has become a law factory covering everything imaginable and enabling small petty-minded bureaucrats to hound small businesses and flex their puny muscles. One law on fire regulations alone cost UK businesses £8 billion. New regulations have poured out governing every aspect of our lives, and businessmen have been swamped by an avalanche of red tape.
Dairy farmers have been subjected, in the last few years alone, to 1,100 separate, specific new laws. Even teddy bear manufacturers have been targeted.
Huge numbers of new criminal offenses have been listed.
It is true that these new laws have to be debated by MEPs but the debates are managed at a such frenetic rate - with MEPs voting on as many as 400 issues in just 90 minutes - that in practice the laws proposed by the bureaucrats are just nodded through. Speakers in the European Parliament are allowed 90 seconds to read out prepared speeches. And then the voting begins.
There are so many new laws that the British Government cannot study them all. The Council of Ministers cannot even read the new laws which the EU passes. The real power now lies with faceless, nameless, unelected bureaucrats who have no accountability whatsoever.
The unknown bureaucrats in Brussels are so desperate to extend their own power and authority, that they have, through the production of miles and miles of unwanted red tape, effectively destroyed the European economy.
Our special tragedy is that Britain's economy has suffered more than most from these new laws.
The other big European nations (France, Germany and Italy) just ignore the rules they don't like. Both France and Germany have flagrantly broken the rules on government deficits but for these two countries there have been no sanctions, no fines and no penalties. `These are for smaller countries,' said a French Government spokesman with typical gallic arrogance. The French have ignored hundreds of directives relating to the single market (directives which Britain, of course, has obeyed slavishly). Commenting on why he had, like so many other Britons, bought a home in France, Lord Nigel Lawson (former Chancellor) said he'd bought it because it was such a relief to get away from the EU.
Britain, of course, obeys all the rules. And British people and British businessmen pay the ever increasing price.
7. It was a crime for individual countries to talk about quitting the USSR. Indeed, there was no procedure to enable countries to leave the soviet union. The EU is much the same.
8. Corruption usually starts from the bottom and works its way up through the system. In both the USSR and the EU the corruption starts at the top and works its way down. Corruption was systemic in the old USSR and it is systemic in the EU. The EU is riddled with the standard socialist form of corruption where the protagonists live by the motto: `what is yours is mine and what is mine is mine and I will chop your hands off if you try to take it'. This was the popular way of doing things in the USSR. Like the USSR, the EU operates in a way that ensures the redistribution of wealth. In both cases the system means that the wealth is redistributed from the workers to the bureaucrats.
9. Like a pyramid selling scheme the USSR needed to be aggressive and to continue growing in order to stay alive. If it stopped growing it would fail. The EU is the same. It makes absolutely no economic sense for the EU to take in small, poor countries. The countries encouraged to join the EU in 2004 were welcomed for ideological rather than economic reasons. The six original members of the Common Market have slowly become 25. And then how many will there be? The bureaucracy needs to grow to justify its existence and its demands for increasing amounts of money. All bureaucracies like to grow. It is, in part, their raison d'etre. As they grow so they become increasingly important. Assistants can have assistants of their own. Secretaries can have secretaries. The politicians of the existing countries are persuaded that if the EU grows they will have bigger markets. No one bothers about the fact that the new countries which join the EU will want to share in the subsidies which the EU hands out. Countries like the UK, which pay money to be members of the EU, will have to pay more money for even less reason.
The language problems are enormous. In the new EU there are hundreds of translation combinations. The EU now works like a series of Chinese whispers. Speakers in, say, Finnish are translated first into English and then into another language and then into a fourth language.
The new countries coming into the EU have many different cultures and laws. Just how they are going to fit into one superstate is something only the bureaucrats who have planned the whole thing can explain. (And, as always, they aren't talking.)
For example, consider Turkey, one of the new EU proposed members. Under Turkish law, if a rapist marries his victim he can walk free. The basis for this is that nobody would want to marry a girl who is not a virgin and so the rapist is doing the girl a favour.
Turkish law also allows a mother who murders her child to be given a reduced sentence if the baby was born out of wedlock.
Another Turkish law rules that kidnapping a married woman is a greater crime than kidnapping a woman who isn't married.
The Turkish authorities arrested a young journalist simply on suspicion of being linked to a banned political party. For this, she was sentenced to over 12 years in prison.
I mention all this not in criticism but simply to show just how much difference there is between Turkish culture and British culture. And yet the Turks and the British are expected to be citizens of the same 450 million citizen country; supposedly sharing customs, mores and laws. Naturally, all governments want harmonisation to be organised on their own terms.
(The Americans, incidentally, are desperate for Turkey to join the EU. They believe that if this happens it will make it impossible for Bin Laden and others to claim that the EU is another `Christian Superstate'.)
10. In the former USSR the citizens of individual countries were told that they should forget about their former national identities. They should, they were told, consider themselves members of the USSR rather than citizens of Ukraine or Russia. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU superstate.
The EU is intent on destroying and absorbing national states. Britain and England will both disappear completely as the EU superstate develops its identity.
11. The USSR was an ideological dictatorship. That is what the EU is. The aim of the EU is the formation of a state, the preservation of socialism within the state and the expansion of the principles of political correctness. Most political groups which oppose the EU are small, and will remain small, because it is virtually impossible to obtain funding or publicity for any group which opposes the EU.
In the UK there are just three main parties - all of which are supportive of the EU. This is manifestly unfair since it means that a majority of the British population must inevitably remain unrepresented.
Organisations which represent national interests (particularly English interests) are denied power, money and publicity on the grounds that they must be racist. Anyone who supports Britain or England will find themselves branded a racist. (Supporters of Wales and Scotland are never accused of being racist since both these countries will still exist as regions in the new EU superstate.)
12. The USSR had a gulag and so does the EU. The EU has an intellectual gulag; if your views differ from the `approved' views you will find it difficult to get them published.
Naturally, those who disapprove of the EU will find it difficult or impossible to obtain a job working for the EU. Making a speech or writing a book which criticises the EU (or the laws of the EU) may be regarded as a crime if it is considered subversive. (It is, of course, up to the bureaucrats of the EU to decide whether or not something is `subversive'.) One Englishman made the mistake of standing up at a public meeting and defending the rights and freedoms of English country people. As a result of his comments two police officers visited the speaker's home, arrested him (refusing to tell him why) took him to a police station and threw him into a cell.
When five Britons visited Brussels and drove around the city in vehicles which were decorated with posters which called for a referendum on the EU constitution they were arrested for `disturbing public order' and `demonstrating without permission'.
13. Citizens in the old USSR had to carry ID cards. The loss of civil liberties which this entailed used to be regarded with suspicion and some contempt by Western European democracies. In the new EU, citizens are losing their freedom and must carry ID cards. (It is a myth that ID cards contribute anything whatsoever to national security. ID cards always exist for one reason only: to take away the freedoms and civil liberties of the citizens who must carry them.)
It is very easy to lose your freedom, but very difficult to get it back.
14. Officers in the new EU police force have even greater privileges than officers in the much feared KGB. All members of the new EU police force have diplomatic immunity. They can walk into your home, arrest you, beat you up and steal your property and you cannot do a darned thing about it. Now do you believe me when I say that the EU is a fascist organisation?
Taken from Saving England by Vernon Coleman, published by Blue Books. `Saving England' is available from the webshop on this site (and from all other good bookshops whether online or not).
Copyright Vernon Coleman 2005
Let me try and explain where Im coming from.
There has never been a true communist nation in the true concept of communism,
The Communism ideal that we are all equal and no one owns private property etc has never been practiced.
Look at China do you really believe that they are all communist and the same goes for North Korea, Yes it maybe communism for the people that are starving and who have nothing but its not communism for the fat rulers.
The USSR was never communist' we saw that when it broke up all these people in charge took the wealth the gathered and fled.
What Im saying is that the E.U Greece I was on about for now' is no different to the communist (so called) that we have seen in the past ( even though Id admit that no nation has ever been truly communist).
What I am saying is that Greece is using tactics the old USSR used and com Aug in the UK when Universal Credit is introduced then it will be hard to tell apart the UK from the old USSR.
I did a bit of digging and found an article by Dr Vernon Coleman which make explain better what I was trying to put across, he is a Writer and Im a Bricklayer so he may put it in a way that you understand where I was going.
Im saying that they call it capitalism but its only capitalism for some, they call it communism but its only communism for some, in both the money moves from the bottom all the way to the top, and it my mind that makes them both the same just using different names.
This article was written in 2005,
Many people now believe that the EU is, in many critical ways, indistinguishable from the old Soviet Union.
In a speech delivered at the House of Commons in 2002, Vladimir Bukovsky noted the following similarities between the old USSR and the EU. I have paraphrased and expanded on his thoughts below:
1. Anyone who opposes or deviates from the socialist system will be ostracised. For example, when the Austrian people had the temerity to elect `the wrong sort of Government' (it was considered too nationalistic and right wing by the EU) the EU pronounced the new Government unacceptable. With apparent magnanimity, the EU announced that it would `accept' an Italian President elected by the Italian people. All sorts of tricks are used to isolate and marginalise those who opposed the EU. Those questioning the EU are often portrayed as insular and parochial.
2. Like the USSR, the EU is governed by a group of people who appoint one another, are unaccountable to the public, enjoy generous salaries, massive perks and huge pensions, are pretty much above the law and cannot be sacked. The EU, like any committed socialist government, operates without any real feedback from the people, and certainly without any concern for what the people think. The state must always come first. The only people who benefit (as with all socialist and fascist organisations - and the two are, of course, interchangeable) are those who have put themselves and their friends in charge. The workers never really benefit from socialism. The profits of the hard working, the creative and the thrifty are redistributed to the bureaucracy: the lazy, the unthinking and the wasteful.
The central planners (in the case of the USSR they were in Moscow, in the case of the EU they are in Brussels) insist on making all the judgements and decisions but their lack of experience means that they get everything wrong so there are constant shortages and black markets.
State socialism in the EU has not led to affluence, equality and freedom but, effectively, to a one-party political system. (All three main parties in Britain support the EU and the destruction of Britain). The fascist EU has,inevitably, created a massive bureaucracy, heavy-handed secret police, government control of the media and endless secrecy and lies.
The socialist bureaucracy of the EU is run by people who arrogantly believe that they are the only ones who need to know and that they always know best.
3. There was one political party in the USSR (and no opposition) and the same is true of the EU. Political parties which don't support the EU are denied the oxygen of financial support. Politicians who do support the EU can look forward to good jobs (when they retire or leave domestic politics they may, like Neil Kinnock or Chris Patten, get jobs as EU commissioners). The system looks after its own. When the EU constitution was being debated, the main sticking point among delegates was not the sovereignty of their individual nations, or the rights of the voters, but the number of delegates each country would be allowed to send to EU meetings. Each nation's individuality was pushed to one side as irrelevant and inconsequential, in favour of the rights of politicians to attend regular, all expenses paid beanos.
4. Like the USSR, the EU was created with little or no respect for normal democratic principles. Much of what has happened within the EU has happened secretly and without the normal principles of democracy being considered or applied. What has happened over the last few decades has happened largely in secret.
5. Instead of information about the EU we have been fed a good deal of propaganda. The bureaucrats organise and control people and they try to control the availability of knowledge. The people are always controlled with lies and misinformation. (Today these are known as `spin'.) Anyone who dares to oppose the EU or to promote England is likely to be described as a `racist'. My book England Our England has proved enormously popular with readers (and was, within the first year, reprinted numerous times) but advertisements for the book were banned by a number of publications. Although the book is one of Britain's bestselling books on politics, it has never been reviewed in any national newspaper.
Very few Britons realise exactly what has already happened, how what has happened has already affected their lives and how things will now develop unless we do something very soon. A poll quietly taken for Britain's Foreign Office showed that a quarter of Britons did not know that their country was already a member of the EU. Astonishingly, 7% of Britons thought that the USA was a member. This ignorance isn't unique to Britain. A poll in Germany showed that 31% of the public had never heard of the European Commission.
The bureaucrats realise that until there is more awareness of and interest in what has happened, and what is happening, there are unlikely to be any protests.
6. The former USSR was renowned for its vast number of laws, rules and regulations. But the USSR was nothing compared to the EU. The EC has become a law factory covering everything imaginable and enabling small petty-minded bureaucrats to hound small businesses and flex their puny muscles. One law on fire regulations alone cost UK businesses £8 billion. New regulations have poured out governing every aspect of our lives, and businessmen have been swamped by an avalanche of red tape.
Dairy farmers have been subjected, in the last few years alone, to 1,100 separate, specific new laws. Even teddy bear manufacturers have been targeted.
Huge numbers of new criminal offenses have been listed.
It is true that these new laws have to be debated by MEPs but the debates are managed at a such frenetic rate - with MEPs voting on as many as 400 issues in just 90 minutes - that in practice the laws proposed by the bureaucrats are just nodded through. Speakers in the European Parliament are allowed 90 seconds to read out prepared speeches. And then the voting begins.
There are so many new laws that the British Government cannot study them all. The Council of Ministers cannot even read the new laws which the EU passes. The real power now lies with faceless, nameless, unelected bureaucrats who have no accountability whatsoever.
The unknown bureaucrats in Brussels are so desperate to extend their own power and authority, that they have, through the production of miles and miles of unwanted red tape, effectively destroyed the European economy.
Our special tragedy is that Britain's economy has suffered more than most from these new laws.
The other big European nations (France, Germany and Italy) just ignore the rules they don't like. Both France and Germany have flagrantly broken the rules on government deficits but for these two countries there have been no sanctions, no fines and no penalties. `These are for smaller countries,' said a French Government spokesman with typical gallic arrogance. The French have ignored hundreds of directives relating to the single market (directives which Britain, of course, has obeyed slavishly). Commenting on why he had, like so many other Britons, bought a home in France, Lord Nigel Lawson (former Chancellor) said he'd bought it because it was such a relief to get away from the EU.
Britain, of course, obeys all the rules. And British people and British businessmen pay the ever increasing price.
7. It was a crime for individual countries to talk about quitting the USSR. Indeed, there was no procedure to enable countries to leave the soviet union. The EU is much the same.
8. Corruption usually starts from the bottom and works its way up through the system. In both the USSR and the EU the corruption starts at the top and works its way down. Corruption was systemic in the old USSR and it is systemic in the EU. The EU is riddled with the standard socialist form of corruption where the protagonists live by the motto: `what is yours is mine and what is mine is mine and I will chop your hands off if you try to take it'. This was the popular way of doing things in the USSR. Like the USSR, the EU operates in a way that ensures the redistribution of wealth. In both cases the system means that the wealth is redistributed from the workers to the bureaucrats.
9. Like a pyramid selling scheme the USSR needed to be aggressive and to continue growing in order to stay alive. If it stopped growing it would fail. The EU is the same. It makes absolutely no economic sense for the EU to take in small, poor countries. The countries encouraged to join the EU in 2004 were welcomed for ideological rather than economic reasons. The six original members of the Common Market have slowly become 25. And then how many will there be? The bureaucracy needs to grow to justify its existence and its demands for increasing amounts of money. All bureaucracies like to grow. It is, in part, their raison d'etre. As they grow so they become increasingly important. Assistants can have assistants of their own. Secretaries can have secretaries. The politicians of the existing countries are persuaded that if the EU grows they will have bigger markets. No one bothers about the fact that the new countries which join the EU will want to share in the subsidies which the EU hands out. Countries like the UK, which pay money to be members of the EU, will have to pay more money for even less reason.
The language problems are enormous. In the new EU there are hundreds of translation combinations. The EU now works like a series of Chinese whispers. Speakers in, say, Finnish are translated first into English and then into another language and then into a fourth language.
The new countries coming into the EU have many different cultures and laws. Just how they are going to fit into one superstate is something only the bureaucrats who have planned the whole thing can explain. (And, as always, they aren't talking.)
For example, consider Turkey, one of the new EU proposed members. Under Turkish law, if a rapist marries his victim he can walk free. The basis for this is that nobody would want to marry a girl who is not a virgin and so the rapist is doing the girl a favour.
Turkish law also allows a mother who murders her child to be given a reduced sentence if the baby was born out of wedlock.
Another Turkish law rules that kidnapping a married woman is a greater crime than kidnapping a woman who isn't married.
The Turkish authorities arrested a young journalist simply on suspicion of being linked to a banned political party. For this, she was sentenced to over 12 years in prison.
I mention all this not in criticism but simply to show just how much difference there is between Turkish culture and British culture. And yet the Turks and the British are expected to be citizens of the same 450 million citizen country; supposedly sharing customs, mores and laws. Naturally, all governments want harmonisation to be organised on their own terms.
(The Americans, incidentally, are desperate for Turkey to join the EU. They believe that if this happens it will make it impossible for Bin Laden and others to claim that the EU is another `Christian Superstate'.)
10. In the former USSR the citizens of individual countries were told that they should forget about their former national identities. They should, they were told, consider themselves members of the USSR rather than citizens of Ukraine or Russia. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU superstate.
The EU is intent on destroying and absorbing national states. Britain and England will both disappear completely as the EU superstate develops its identity.
11. The USSR was an ideological dictatorship. That is what the EU is. The aim of the EU is the formation of a state, the preservation of socialism within the state and the expansion of the principles of political correctness. Most political groups which oppose the EU are small, and will remain small, because it is virtually impossible to obtain funding or publicity for any group which opposes the EU.
In the UK there are just three main parties - all of which are supportive of the EU. This is manifestly unfair since it means that a majority of the British population must inevitably remain unrepresented.
Organisations which represent national interests (particularly English interests) are denied power, money and publicity on the grounds that they must be racist. Anyone who supports Britain or England will find themselves branded a racist. (Supporters of Wales and Scotland are never accused of being racist since both these countries will still exist as regions in the new EU superstate.)
12. The USSR had a gulag and so does the EU. The EU has an intellectual gulag; if your views differ from the `approved' views you will find it difficult to get them published.
Naturally, those who disapprove of the EU will find it difficult or impossible to obtain a job working for the EU. Making a speech or writing a book which criticises the EU (or the laws of the EU) may be regarded as a crime if it is considered subversive. (It is, of course, up to the bureaucrats of the EU to decide whether or not something is `subversive'.) One Englishman made the mistake of standing up at a public meeting and defending the rights and freedoms of English country people. As a result of his comments two police officers visited the speaker's home, arrested him (refusing to tell him why) took him to a police station and threw him into a cell.
When five Britons visited Brussels and drove around the city in vehicles which were decorated with posters which called for a referendum on the EU constitution they were arrested for `disturbing public order' and `demonstrating without permission'.
13. Citizens in the old USSR had to carry ID cards. The loss of civil liberties which this entailed used to be regarded with suspicion and some contempt by Western European democracies. In the new EU, citizens are losing their freedom and must carry ID cards. (It is a myth that ID cards contribute anything whatsoever to national security. ID cards always exist for one reason only: to take away the freedoms and civil liberties of the citizens who must carry them.)
It is very easy to lose your freedom, but very difficult to get it back.
14. Officers in the new EU police force have even greater privileges than officers in the much feared KGB. All members of the new EU police force have diplomatic immunity. They can walk into your home, arrest you, beat you up and steal your property and you cannot do a darned thing about it. Now do you believe me when I say that the EU is a fascist organisation?
Taken from Saving England by Vernon Coleman, published by Blue Books. `Saving England' is available from the webshop on this site (and from all other good bookshops whether online or not).
Copyright Vernon Coleman 2005
reply to post by pavmas
My friend if we try hard enough we can find similarity between all systems. It is true that most big parties have been bought out by rich people with the nwo agenda. This is also true in USA which has been electing ONLY democrats and republicans. We could say its a duopoly of influence.
Interestingly enough here is a north korean video of modern day america, of people living in train stations, in derelict homes, with no running water, people shooting birds and feasting on them, IN THE USA which supposedly is the richest country on earth, or was at some point.
If you are looking for libertarian socialism I don't think you will find it anywhere.
My friend if we try hard enough we can find similarity between all systems. It is true that most big parties have been bought out by rich people with the nwo agenda. This is also true in USA which has been electing ONLY democrats and republicans. We could say its a duopoly of influence.
Interestingly enough here is a north korean video of modern day america, of people living in train stations, in derelict homes, with no running water, people shooting birds and feasting on them, IN THE USA which supposedly is the richest country on earth, or was at some point.
If you are looking for libertarian socialism I don't think you will find it anywhere.
Originally posted by Cabin
reply to post by pavmas
This is fear-mongerning, nothing more.
These are not Labor Camps/Concentration camps, otherwise the media in EU would be full of it.
There is so much crime that prisons are full in Greece. As financial criminals are not as violent as others, they are just taken to military camps, until rural prisons are built. All human rights are respected. Nothing worth fear-mongering.
Just like jail, simply in another place. No labour work. Far more freedom than in jail + food.
The media are in on it, so no, the media wont highlight what is not good for their masters.
Originally posted by xuenchen
Soooo
When does this start in the U.S. ?
Maybe sooner than we think..
The I.R.S.S. is capable of anything.
I live in Finland so I might not know but aren't private debtor prisons already a common thing in the US? According to my common knowledge the prisoners manufacture goods to cover the cost of their incarceration and to make huge profit for private enterprise that manage the prison system.
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
A little bit of history, in 1945 US America ended the second world war as the wealthiest nation on earth and the most powerful as we the British had bargained all our wealth and our colonies away in order to obtain aid from the states and the US government made the freeing up of our empire a condition of said aid claiming a free market was good for the world (In a free market all wealth goes to the top as you know so it is in the vested interest of those in power to keep there people thinking they are free when they are not), Prior to this we had fulfilled the role international policeman since 1812 an age called the pax Britanica by british historians, If not for us America would have been alone against an atomic Germany and a stronger imperial Japan, in the 1930's we and America were nearly at war on several occasion's, knowing our assets over stretched we tried all diplomatic channels to avoid a conflict but the US had drawn up war plans to invade and annex Canada while the Canadians had drawn up defence plan's and counter attack plans, we believed we would lose any land war in Canada (and the Canadians did not know they were on there own) but we could with the now non existent Grand Fleet keep the Us fleet in stalemate at least in the short term, meanwhile Adolf Hitler whom had come to power in 1933 watched rubbing his hands together as he wanted his fellow Germanic country Britain under his Reich and had drawn up plans to enter the war on our side.
Why am I on about this, well America gained what it wanted without going to war with us but left Canada be, nevertheless the current world we live in is a result of the Martial plan and the use of the wealth of the British empire which was taken in exchange for the lend lease of food and weapon's leaving Britain virtually broke to build up the formerly enemy nation's after they lost and model them after the American system, Now correct me if I am wrong were the statistics for the states 8 in 10 people lived in trailor parks in the 1990's and is that a fair system.
You know of the consolidation of wealth and power from the 1900's to today were it has increasingly entered fewer and fewer hand's, without a social reform or a group of ethical leaders that we are now sorely lacking then our world is all but over as these people wish to cull your numbers and create an ideal state for themselves, hell they already believe themselves to be a superior species (Morons) that have the right to control your existence though they were not democratically elected, they control the banking institutions and the corporations, they own the world and you are livestock to them and you know who/what I mean...
WE NEED SOCIAL REFORM AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEVELS.
we also need a different culture as the one we now have has promoted only greed and violence across the world.
A little bit of history, in 1945 US America ended the second world war as the wealthiest nation on earth and the most powerful as we the British had bargained all our wealth and our colonies away in order to obtain aid from the states and the US government made the freeing up of our empire a condition of said aid claiming a free market was good for the world (In a free market all wealth goes to the top as you know so it is in the vested interest of those in power to keep there people thinking they are free when they are not), Prior to this we had fulfilled the role international policeman since 1812 an age called the pax Britanica by british historians, If not for us America would have been alone against an atomic Germany and a stronger imperial Japan, in the 1930's we and America were nearly at war on several occasion's, knowing our assets over stretched we tried all diplomatic channels to avoid a conflict but the US had drawn up war plans to invade and annex Canada while the Canadians had drawn up defence plan's and counter attack plans, we believed we would lose any land war in Canada (and the Canadians did not know they were on there own) but we could with the now non existent Grand Fleet keep the Us fleet in stalemate at least in the short term, meanwhile Adolf Hitler whom had come to power in 1933 watched rubbing his hands together as he wanted his fellow Germanic country Britain under his Reich and had drawn up plans to enter the war on our side.
Why am I on about this, well America gained what it wanted without going to war with us but left Canada be, nevertheless the current world we live in is a result of the Martial plan and the use of the wealth of the British empire which was taken in exchange for the lend lease of food and weapon's leaving Britain virtually broke to build up the formerly enemy nation's after they lost and model them after the American system, Now correct me if I am wrong were the statistics for the states 8 in 10 people lived in trailor parks in the 1990's and is that a fair system.
You know of the consolidation of wealth and power from the 1900's to today were it has increasingly entered fewer and fewer hand's, without a social reform or a group of ethical leaders that we are now sorely lacking then our world is all but over as these people wish to cull your numbers and create an ideal state for themselves, hell they already believe themselves to be a superior species (Morons) that have the right to control your existence though they were not democratically elected, they control the banking institutions and the corporations, they own the world and you are livestock to them and you know who/what I mean...
WE NEED SOCIAL REFORM AT NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEVELS.
we also need a different culture as the one we now have has promoted only greed and violence across the world.
edit on 1-6-2013 by LABTECH767
because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by pavmas
That is what happens with capitalist systems eventually, they eat up the competition and become monopolies. Instead of a public monopoly that is state owned we have private monopolies. It is STILL CAPITALISM though!
State capitalism is when we have many private monopolies price gouging folks like in the uk. Of course they don't pay enough taxes. They lobby government via bribes. Bribes are not supposed to be disclosed, surely you should know this.
Ok in 1993 there was a board set up to look at solar power, the chairman was the head of BP, the board decided that most investment was needed to bring solar power to the masses, the board said that BP should get a grant of £600 million, now that is capitalism.
But the same happens in the USSR, capitalism is supposed to be where the private company picks up the tab, communsim is where the state picks up the tab.
BP private company £600 in grants, Amazon £23 million in grants, Bus companies sold in the Uk the receive £ millions a years in public money, rail receives public money but was privatised.
Communism or capitalim are only names, the property of the state ends up in the hands of a small group of individuals who still get supported out of public purse.
You give it any name you want but what im saying is the same system is been operated in the UK that was operated in the USSR
Yes this IS horrible. BUT. my Brother in law is Greek and owns and operates a business in the US. He uses pirated copies of software to install in the
clients machines. I could Bust Him Big Time.. some day.. i just might..except for his kids.. still like my A Hole Brother in law.. you never know..
Some people Might deserve this.
reply to post by pavmas
Companies are NOT SUPPOSED to get grants, subsidies or bailouts in capitalism. If you fail then you should go OUT OF BUSINESS just like if I mismanage my hotel business I go out of business. Its really that simple. What we have is croney capitalism or state capitalism, virtually the same thing.
In socialism that is a different economy because business publicly owned and thus if business goes under then the public bails it out. If business is good then the public should get dividents, aka share the profits. Of course most of the time business is not efficient enough and it either needs bailouts or it operates at cost.
We have croney capitalism where private monopolies are subsidised by the public. Too big to fail bailouts are similar. The public should not tolerate it.
Companies are NOT SUPPOSED to get grants, subsidies or bailouts in capitalism. If you fail then you should go OUT OF BUSINESS just like if I mismanage my hotel business I go out of business. Its really that simple. What we have is croney capitalism or state capitalism, virtually the same thing.
In socialism that is a different economy because business publicly owned and thus if business goes under then the public bails it out. If business is good then the public should get dividents, aka share the profits. Of course most of the time business is not efficient enough and it either needs bailouts or it operates at cost.
We have croney capitalism where private monopolies are subsidised by the public. Too big to fail bailouts are similar. The public should not tolerate it.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by pavmas
Companies are NOT SUPPOSED to get grants, subsidies or bailouts in capitalism. If you fail then you should go OUT OF BUSINESS just like if I mismanage my hotel business I go out of business. Its really that simple. What we have is croney capitalism or state capitalism, virtually the same thing.
In socialism that is a different economy because business publicly owned and thus if business goes under then the public bails it out. If business is good then the public should get dividents, aka share the profits. Of course most of the time business is not efficient enough and it either needs bailouts or it operates at cost.
We have croney capitalism where private monopolies are subsidised by the public. Too big to fail bailouts are similar. The public should not tolerate it.
They have clouded the issue by calling one Capitalism and one Communism.
I dont know if capitalism is a form of communism or vice versa . You have to look back to the 1920s where capitalism with the collapse of wall street changed and the great depression, in came large building programs which mirrored communism, then at the same time the USSR changed from what you would imagine was communism where everything you would imagine would be the same way for decades with no change.
So communism in the USSR brought in 5 year plans just as we have 5 year elections in the UK and USA or 4 years what ever it is,.
In both systems which have never been true capitalism or communism both had 5 year plans. For instance if Tories get in in the UK then they scrap defence contracts that labour signed despite £billions already been spent on them and create their own spending contract and Labour do the same.
As we has only a small number of arms manusfacturers these Arms manufactuer earn £ Billions for doing nothing and they must love it when their is a change ( I dont know if the USA do the same.
But in the USSR 5 year reviews the same happened contracts were scrapped and new ones started and data was fiddled to show that things that were paid for were built.
In all cases the wealth floated to the people at the top where the people at the bottom are ruled with an Iron fist and demonstrations against the rulers and in USA/UK are met with with the same response that they are met with in Communist counties.
Im saying that socialists, communists and capitalists are only words and they same system is practiced whether you believe you live in a communist state of capiatilst country.
Up to now there was more freedoms in capitalist counties ( or we had that immpression) but now we are seeing unjust taxes to pay for Banks bailouts, Capitalism meant the banks than ran out of money should have went to the wall, In USA GA motors should have went to the wall.
I still say there is no difference in Capitalism or Communism and I think a bunch of Cs are running both
reply to post by pavmas
I honestly have no idea why you want to confuse the two. Perhaps people have been brainwashed too severly against socalism and communism in favor of capitalism. You have to understand the basics: capitalism denotes private ownership of the means of production. communism denotes public ownership of the means of production. socialism denotes a mixed economy where critical sectors are publicly owned and the other sectors are privately owned.
please tell me about british airways, british telecom, british rail, etc. Are they STILL publicly owned or have they become privatised? They have become privatised! But at the same time they are too big to fail and thus they need either subsidies or bailouts from the public. This is not supposed to happen under capitalism. If you make bad decisions then you should FAIL! Of course the british government run under the bankers in disguise of the government have so much contempt of the public because they know they can easily fool people into believing anything. Thatcher was a royal bitch pardon my french. She started the privatisation frenzy in the uk and reagan started the privatisation and deregulation frenzy in the usa. They were right wingers, NOT LEFT! duh:
I honestly have no idea why you want to confuse the two. Perhaps people have been brainwashed too severly against socalism and communism in favor of capitalism. You have to understand the basics: capitalism denotes private ownership of the means of production. communism denotes public ownership of the means of production. socialism denotes a mixed economy where critical sectors are publicly owned and the other sectors are privately owned.
please tell me about british airways, british telecom, british rail, etc. Are they STILL publicly owned or have they become privatised? They have become privatised! But at the same time they are too big to fail and thus they need either subsidies or bailouts from the public. This is not supposed to happen under capitalism. If you make bad decisions then you should FAIL! Of course the british government run under the bankers in disguise of the government have so much contempt of the public because they know they can easily fool people into believing anything. Thatcher was a royal bitch pardon my french. She started the privatisation frenzy in the uk and reagan started the privatisation and deregulation frenzy in the usa. They were right wingers, NOT LEFT! duh:
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
Yes we know what it means, let me make it simple, name one true capitalist country, and name one true communist country, They don't exist so you have something in the middle and thats the model Im talking about.
We have Labour Mps in the UK who will swear they are socialists who would put die hard capitalists to shame and the reverse is true of the Tories.
All models regardless of the name wealth floats to the tops and you have the haves and the have nots.
Yes we know what it means, let me make it simple, name one true capitalist country, and name one true communist country, They don't exist so you have something in the middle and thats the model Im talking about.
We have Labour Mps in the UK who will swear they are socialists who would put die hard capitalists to shame and the reverse is true of the Tories.
All models regardless of the name wealth floats to the tops and you have the haves and the have nots.
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by pavmas
I honestly have no idea why you want to confuse the two. Perhaps people have been brainwashed too severly against socalism and communism in favor of capitalism. You have to understand the basics: capitalism denotes private ownership of the means of production. communism denotes public ownership of the means of production. socialism denotes a mixed economy where critical sectors are publicly owned and the other sectors are privately owned.
please tell me about british airways, british telecom, british rail, etc. Are they STILL publicly owned or have they become privatised? They have become privatised! But at the same time they are too big to fail and thus they need either subsidies or bailouts from the public. This is not supposed to happen under capitalism. If you make bad decisions then you should FAIL! Of course the british government run under the bankers in disguise of the government have so much contempt of the public because they know they can easily fool people into believing anything. Thatcher was a royal bitch pardon my french. She started the privatisation frenzy in the uk and reagan started the privatisation and deregulation frenzy in the usa. They were right wingers, NOT LEFT! duh:
Im not confusing the two you are. Im saying there is not two systems only one and you can call it what you want
Originally posted by pavmas
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
Yes we know what it means, let me make it simple, name one true capitalist country, and name one true communist country, They don't exist so you have something in the middle and thats the model Im talking about.
We have Labour Mps in the UK who will swear they are socialists who would put die hard capitalists to shame and the reverse is true of the Tories.
All models regardless of the name wealth floats to the tops and you have the haves and the have nots.
Tony Blair certainly gave his party a terrible name but looking back I don't think he really had a choice. Bush was a warmonger that needed an allie in attacking iraq and the uk never says no to america, just like america never says no to israel.
Theory is one thing and practice is another. Other than that how many times has the labour party been in power in the uk? I ask because I do not live there and I am curious. You have to be joking if you think conservatives and progressives are the same thing.
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
We get Tories then we get labour then tories again. our prime ministers come from Cambride or Eaton.
Labour had a Leadership challange and said we are offering real choice this time, the candidates all educated at
cambridge university.
They were the 2 Millibrand brothers and Diane Abbot ( real choice eh).
Its just the same as in the USA where you have republicans and democrats' no choice really, one gets in then the other then the first, and the polices are just the same.
We get Tories then we get labour then tories again. our prime ministers come from Cambride or Eaton.
Labour had a Leadership challange and said we are offering real choice this time, the candidates all educated at
cambridge university.
They were the 2 Millibrand brothers and Diane Abbot ( real choice eh).
Its just the same as in the USA where you have republicans and democrats' no choice really, one gets in then the other then the first, and the polices are just the same.
reply to post by pavmas
en.wikipedia.org...(UK)
I guess we can see that the labour party that used to be progressive is now liberal. It got bastardised to high hell. I keep telling people that liberals and progressives are not the same thing and I have to say it yet again, this time for the uk rather than some other country.
I take politics seriously friend. I wish others would do due dilligence in their research as well!
Beginning in the late-1980s continuing to the current day,[13] the party has adopted free market policies, leading many observers to describe the Labour Party as social democratic[14][15][16][17] or Third Way, rather than democratic socialist.[15][16][18][19][20] Other commentators go further and argue that traditional social democratic parties across Europe, including the British Labour Party, have been so deeply transformed in recent years by prevailing economic and social neoliberalism that it is no longer possible to describe them ideologically as 'social democratic',[21] and claim that this ideological shift has put new strains on the party's traditional relationship with the trade unions.[22][23][24][25]
Party electoral manifestos have not contained the term socialism since 1992, and in 1995 the original Clause Four was abolished. The new version, although still affirming a commitment to democratic socialism, drops mention of public ownership of industry:
en.wikipedia.org...(UK)
I guess we can see that the labour party that used to be progressive is now liberal. It got bastardised to high hell. I keep telling people that liberals and progressives are not the same thing and I have to say it yet again, this time for the uk rather than some other country.
I take politics seriously friend. I wish others would do due dilligence in their research as well!
edit on 2/6/13 by EarthCitizen07 because:
(no reason given)
new topics
-
London Christmas Market BANS Word ‘Christmas’
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 4 minutes ago -
Marvin Gabrion's sentence commuted by Biden
General Chit Chat: 23 minutes ago -
Parker Solar Probe is about to Kiss the Sun
Space Exploration: 1 hours ago -
Drones On Live Beach Cam New Jersey.
Aliens and UFOs: 3 hours ago -
Christmas Dinner ??
Food and Cooking: 3 hours ago -
Merry Christmas !!
General Chit Chat: 7 hours ago
top topics
-
Merry Christmas !!
General Chit Chat: 7 hours ago, 12 flags -
Christmas Dinner ??
Food and Cooking: 3 hours ago, 3 flags -
Drones On Live Beach Cam New Jersey.
Aliens and UFOs: 3 hours ago, 3 flags -
Parker Solar Probe is about to Kiss the Sun
Space Exploration: 1 hours ago, 2 flags -
Marvin Gabrion's sentence commuted by Biden
General Chit Chat: 23 minutes ago, 2 flags -
London Christmas Market BANS Word ‘Christmas’
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 4 minutes ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
This is an interesting picture. Do we actually pick our leaders?
Politicians & People • 11 • : berbofthegreen -
London Christmas Market BANS Word ‘Christmas’
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 1 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Christmas Dinner ??
Food and Cooking • 2 • : Flyingclaydisk -
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 7950 • : imitator -
President-elect TRUMP Picks MATT GAETZ for his ATTORNEY GENERAL - High Level PANIC Ensues.
2024 Elections • 140 • : fringeofthefringe -
Merry Christmas !!
General Chit Chat • 13 • : lilzazz -
Marvin Gabrion's sentence commuted by Biden
General Chit Chat • 0 • : Shoshanna -
-@TH3WH17ERABB17- -Q- ---TIME TO SHOW THE WORLD--- -Part- --44--
Dissecting Disinformation • 3796 • : Thoughtful3 -
Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'
Other Current Events • 35 • : andy06shake -
Parker Solar Probe is about to Kiss the Sun
Space Exploration • 3 • : McGinty