Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification,alt.anarchism,alt.politics.communism,alt.religion.islam From: jos boersema Subject: Re: On Usury (loan sharking), the Conditions for Apocalyptic War, Revolution and the Liberation of the Third World Proletariat. References: <003e8aec-4b4f-4541-af06-bc2d1c15e74e@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com> Organization: www.socialism.nl Reply-To: jos boersema Followup-To: alt.politics.communism Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Debian) Date: 26 Dec 2008 09:52:57 GMT Lines: 259 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.127.14.129 X-Trace: 1230285177 news.xs4all.nl 198 [::ffff:80.127.14.129]:56760 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: news.xs4all.nl alt.religion.unification:142903 alt.anarchism:323449 alt.politics.communism:54983 alt.religion.islam:1482025 ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.politics.communism.] On 2008-12-26, The Messiah. Judge of Judgement Day: Lucifer Morning Star. wrote: > > On Usury (loan sharking), the Conditions for Apocalyptic War, > Revolution and the Liberation of the Third World Proletariat. > > Lucifer > Morning Star. > > Aeon of Lucifer 2008 > > It appears that we are witnessing the breakdown of Capitalism and of > many of the world's leading loan-sharking institutions, however all > may not be as it seems. > > 1: Usury. > > Most of the Left seem to dismiss alleged 'conspiracy theorists' who > believe that the agenda of the Capitalist elites is to create a one > world bank and a one world police state, however it is a position > which I believe all the evidence points to. > > Elite banks and non-elite banks. > > The banks which are in trouble are banks that have to play by a > certain set of rules with regards to their asset registers (how much > they are worth). To state the obvious banks with assets of a billion > dollars, cannot lend a hundred billion dollars. > > There are however bankers who do not play by any set of rules with > regards to their assets and reserves. > > It is well known for example that the Federal reserve is a private, > profit making bank which has never in it's history issued a set of > accounts, nor paid a cent in taxes; in fact it is a recipient of > taxes; the Internet is filled with articles and videos regarding this, > so I need not elaborate. > > There are numerous elite banks in this situation such as the Bank of > International Settlements, the IMF, the World Bank and numerous > 'Central Banks,' such as the Bank of England; all private profit > making banks who are not restricted by the rules which non elite banks > are governed by. > > Who creates money? > > New money is created all the time; it is not created by god(s) but by > elite bankers. > > I once had an acquaintance in the London banking world who worked in a > very high position for the 'Bank of China;' he revealed to me that > they simply printed and issued currency and that such things as a > 'reserve' or asset register were total irrelevances. Similarly with > other elite banks, much as it is in State Capitalism (Cuba, North > Korea, the former USSR, etc.) > > The collapse of numerous non-elite banks will not affect the ability > to produce currency by the elite banks; consider the fact that the > multi-billion dollar payout to non-elite banks by various governments > will be borrowed from elite banks. > > 0% Interest. > > Since monetary inflation in Capitalism is always generally running at > somewhere under 5%, why would anyone lend a dollar at 0% when if they > are paid back a dollar next year it will be worth 95 cents; compound > this devaluation of currency over many years, and it simply does not > appear to make sense; any non-elite bank which did this would > inevitably collapse, since there would simply be no profit, but rather > a loss. The only way an elite bank can lend to other banks and > governments at 0% is because they simply create money from nothing and > even if a fraction of what they lend is repaid, they still make a > profit. > > We have not seen the end of Capitalism yet. > > An Orwellian One World Bank, controlled and owned by the elite of > elites and a one world police state to protect their rule seems to be > on the cards; all the evidence points to it. > > 2: The conditions for revolution and the Liberation of the Third World > Proletariat. > > > ?We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war > can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun > it is necessary to take up the gun............... > Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the > enemy...? -- Mao Tse-tung I suggest instead we do this: http://www.socialism.nl This is a fully peaceful method. Of course, if there is a tyranical police state oppression, then fighting in self defense for basic civil liberties can become a necessity. But that is something altogether less drastic then taking up guns and organize a coupe. In general I don't believe much in coups. As long as we have basic civil liberties, the right to lend money under PROPER terms, the right to organize businesses, acquire land, have free speech, there is a lot we can and should do first before picking up guns. If there is democracy (a 2 party "winner takes all" system does not qualify as democratic in my mind though, so that's the same as 1 party dictatorship even if there is marginal voting going on), ... if there is democracy then that is to be fully exploited first. Only in self defense against a police state tyranny does it seem necessary to fight with guns. If we can't win with multi-party democracy, and our powers in finance & business flowing from common civil liberties, then I don't see how we can with with guns either. Since we do need a majority behind the truth. It is simply impossible otherwise: if you have 30% support, fight a coupe, capture the flag and win, and then institute absolute democracy, the 60% will have the majority in that new system, and can change things back. Once we have 51% support, we can already win through the voting system (and other methods), and therefore we don't need to fight. A 2 party system is a case of doubt, presumably it is a clever form of state tyranny, but I'd say we should at least launch a strong and prolonged effort to even win there, however way possible. Even a "winner takes all" party system could be overcome eventually, although it seems more difficult. A 2 party system could indicate that the people in question have a low ability to achieve democracy, which means they are potentially less ready for absolute democracy. In that case it is not even that bad if we can't win easily. > The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer; unfortunately > this is also a requisite for the conditions for revolution; if the > proletariat of the First World are spoiled on bread, circuses and the > fruits of Third World labour slavery and are content, why should they > revolt? > > Marx argued that revolution should occur first in the developed world > and that the fruits of science and technology should be exported to > the undeveloped world. Lenin however, in 'Imperialism, the Highest > Stage of Capitalism' correctly predicted the decline of the > aristocracy and the rise of elite bankers who would export Capital to > the Third World, enslaving the populations in debt and utilising their > cheap labour; consequently he believed that it would be the Third > World proletariat who would rise in revolution against their new > masters (the beneficiaries of their labour and debt slavery in the > First World and their financial elites). Recent developments in Latin > America show this trend with a shift to the 'Left;' gone are many of > the neo-fascist dictators of the 60's, 70's and 80's. > > The proletariat of the First World have become the new slave masters > of the Third World proletariat; Agree. People don't care for thruth because they are too comfy, and not moral enough to care for other people. What used to be "slumming," is now "making trips to 3rd world nations." > our bargain shops and supermarkets are > full of their products and food, while they are enslaved and half- > starved. We rejoice that we can buy tools in a dollar shop that cost a > tenth of the price of those produced in the First World; we eat their > food, we wear their clothes; we are the spoiled children of history; > the new slave masters. > > Slavery works. The slaves do all the work and the masters reap the > benefits of their labour. And with that wealth comes the power of more oppresion. > > > Propaganda is the First Stage of War. Physics is War > > One shall fight 10,000. > > The scientific knowledge of the First World has already infiltrated > the universities of the Third World; the greed of the Capitalists > forces them to ?patent? any new invention. For physicists in China, > for example, it is almost essential for them to read English in order > to read the academic papers and patents from the First World. > Knowledge travels in the sky over the Internet as if lightening > flashing from the East to the West. The great alchemical secret of the > conversion of Mass to Energy is a secret no more. It is only a matter > of time before the enemies of the First World elites use this science > against them. Nuclear weapons leave no fingerprints nor clues to the > identity of their creators; it will be an anonymous guerrilla war > fought by the world?s smallest secret and apocalyptic armies against > the greatest armies in the world. Unlikely that this will be done by many 3rd world nation Governments, although there could be exceptions that don't play along with Rothschild or whomever they are. A controlling ruling clique will, if not naturally developing, be installed to run the 3rd world countries. They will be fed & rich, made friends with western elites, which keeps them loyal to whomever put them there. This is already happened for a long time. A nuclear bomb is still rather difficult to manufacture even for state actors. People evil enough to use it are unlikely to be the peoples resistence for truth & justice. Therefore I expect more of a struggle people <-> Government, and to some degree the Government might get bypassed and the struggle could be against the real problem: the ruling class rich & bankers. If peoples can wise up to such a struggle, already in possession of a somewhat decent state system, I think victory over the corrupt ruling classes could be quick & easy. Such is much more likely to occur in the western world, particularly (Western/Northern) Europe, if only the public cared for true justice, also in international trade. The more militarized and oppressive a Government, the more likely it is 1:1 with the corrupt ruling class. The less oppressive and the more civil liberties a Government fosters, the more the struggle is against the banking and industrial elite themselves. They can then be isolated from Government, and the power of the state can be focussed against them through the rule of (improved!) law(s). We may therefore see 2 types of peoples struggles: one against ruling classes + state and military / police, the other with a more narrow focus on the rich, banks, corrupt, and corrupt elements in politics. The problem is that once a nation falls apart, it is more likely the oppressive state system occurs, and this makes the struggle more difficult. That's why it is so much better to achieve peace & justice when nations are still doing very well for themselves in terms of economics and civil liberties. That means action must be N O W, particularly in the fattened western world. However, assymetrical world revolution threatens the emergence of a world block war, where the public of the oppressive states is not yet in significant struggle against their Government, leaving these Governments free to launch geostrategic war against the areas where there has emerged a more profound form of peace & justice. On the other hand the western countries are also some of the most powerful in terms of that geostrategic military fight. All in all this means: we need global wisening up of all peoples, whether in oppressive states or in states with more civil liberties. Once pressure is building up all over the world, making it hard for oppressive states to fight geostrategic warfare, we can without much risk for such fights finalize the changing of law anywhere. Such national victories would then spur on the law changes in other countries, until all countries have a corrected and not oppressive law system. > All nations and governments shall fall. > > The military and economic elites of the First World already plan and > prepare for this day with the construction of numerous underground > bunkers and surface concentration camps for their future slaves, but > the Internet is full of this information and it is no secret that it > shall not be sufficient to destroy their surface military and > financial command and control centres; after the apocalyptic surface > wars, the Beasts from below the earth and sea will have to also be > dealt with; as above so below; otherwise like the Phoenix, they will > simply rise from the ashes of Armageddon to rule the world again, and > the revolution will have to be begun all over again, and rivers of > blood shall flow. If we have massive popular support for correct laws, 70% - 80%, nothing can touch us. Even heavily armed combat units will probably not be able to regain control. Secondly we would reqruit defectors in mass numbers from such combat units themselves, only the true criminals will want to fight the true laws. These criminals are not effective fighters, they are ineffective scientists, they can destroy but not easily build, so strategically it is a lost battle for them, victory for us. > Lucifer > > No mercy on they who deserve none. > Fire, plague and poisoned waters.