Conspiracy Classic: 'The Capitalist Conspiracy'

[DaPhatConductor]

The Capitalist Conspiracy: An Inside View of International Banking | Open YOUR Eyes | Veoh

Just listened to this doc while doing the dishes and it reminded me how ahead of the game it really was/is.

Many knee jerk radicals don't understand how they too are being manipulated by the powers that be, and they don't understand the fact that communism was/is largely an effort to create 'chaos' which makes the public ask for a one world government.

Enjoy!

[Mr. Magyar]

Originally Posted by DaPhatConductor

Many knee jerk radicals don't understand how they too are being manipulated by the powers that be, and they don't understand the fact that communism was/is largely an effort to create 'chaos' which makes the public ask for a one world government.

Yeah ... You might want to check out how communism is doing as a form of government.

[praktik]

Is this printed out anywhere in an article or something?

I've actually been doing a lot of reading on the revolutionary days in Russia and am hard-pressed to remember any evidence of foreign funding being a major factor in the bankrolling of the various revolutionary factions.

In fact, it seemed to me that Stalin and his cronies spent most of their time under the Tsar robbing banks, holding up steamships and running extortion and kidnapping rackets.

This smacks of the typical American-centric myopia of the conspiratorial worldview. The Rothschilds had a refinery in Baku and had to pay protection money to Stalin (as everyone doing business there had to do, or finance opposing gangs for protection - it was a real "Wild West" out there), ergo, Communism came from Capitalist meddling. Really denies the grassroots history of the revolution and the historical factors grounded very much in Russia's unique past to reduce it so simply...

[basilisk]

Is this information available in something other than video format?

[basilisk]

*high-fives praktik*

Video is slow media.

[Dialog]

I find the requirement to download a video player in order to view the entire thing highly suspicious. Perhaps even part of a conspiracy!

[Mr. Magyar]

Originally Posted by praktik

Is this printed out anywhere in an article or something?

I've actually been doing a lot of reading on the revolutionary days in Russia and am hard-pressed to remember any evidence of foreign funding being a major factor in the bankrolling of the various revolutionary factions.

In fact, it seemed to me that Stalin and his cronies spent most of their time under the Tsar robbing banks, holding up steamships and running extortion and kidnapping rackets.

This smacks of the typical American-centric myopia of the conspiratorial worldview. The Rothschilds had a refinery in Baku and had to pay protection money to Stalin (as everyone doing business there had to do, or finance opposing gangs for protection - it was a real "Wild West" out there), ergo, Communism came from Capitalist meddling. Really denies the grassroots history of the revolution and the historical factors grounded very much in Russia's unique past to reduce it so simply...

The closest that capitalists got to Russia was when the Soviets asked Henry Ford for advice on production. Otherwise, the video and its claims, as you well know, are a bunch of crap.

[SubMissioN]

I don't see how one is as good or better then the other....its the same teeder todder conversation that goes nowhere. Almost as bad as separatists in Canada. Why do people argue about extremely polarized views instead of rethinking their approach to include something in between. I mean its fucking obvious that trading one extreme for another does absolutely nothing.

[SubMissioN]

Hes a real nowhere man living in his nowhere land making all his nowhere plans for nobody.

The Beatles.

[SubMissioN]

[DaPhatConductor]

Originally Posted by SubMissioN

I don't see how one is as good or better then the other....its the same teeder todder conversation that goes nowhere. Almost as bad as separatists in Canada. Why do people argue about extremely polarized views instead of rethinking their approach to include something in between. I mean its fucking obvious that trading one extreme for another does absolutely nothing.

That's the point of the video. In large part the left/right paradigm was fostered and taken advantage of so that the PTB could attempt control the entire ping pong match.

I really do recommend watching this video. From the looks of the comments not one of you actually watched it.

and re: the player - veoh.com is really great. so many awesome documentaries and movies and stuff. well worth downloading the web player.

[Mr. Magyar]

Originally Posted by DaPhatConductor

That's the point of the video. In large part the left/right paradigm was fostered and taken advantage of so that the PTB could attempt control the entire ping pong match.

The Left/Right distinction originated in France and it was based on French legislative bodies' seating arrangments in 1791. On the right of the king sat traditionalists and on the left sat radicals. It wasn't fostered on purpose by any stretch of the imagination by some vague "powers that be."

[praktik]

Originally Posted by Mr. Magyar

The Left/Right distinction originated in France and it was based on French legislative bodies' seating arrangments in 1791. On the right of the king sat traditionalists and on the left sat radicals. It wasn't fostered on purpose by any stretch of the imagination by some vague "powers that be."

This.

It's a common claim, especially among Icke followers that there is no difference between "left and right" and that the whole thing is a "game" designed to keep us occupied while the powers that be do what they want.

You could argue that the difference between left and right goes back even further than that, Locke and Hobbes are good prototypes for what became the fundamental political divide in our era.

The fact is there's a kernel of truth to the claim. Take a look at "wedge issues" in the States and how often they serve to stymie real progress on big issues. There definitely is an element of entertainment and factions in our politics that serve to occupy us while undesirable elements of the status quo persist.

But the fact is there are very real and tangible differences between "left" and "right", put simply: different conceptions of human nature (the tendency on the right to explain criminality and poverty as indicators of the human value of the poor and criminals, the tendency on the left to view all people as "improveable" in the right environment), different conceptions about the role of government (Hamilton: big government is necessary vs Jefferson: small government is the way to go), different social mores [gay rights, drug use (though libertarians would agree with many on the left on this, and some centre-left will agree with conservatives on prohibition), views on the police, minorities, women etc].

To wave all this history away and pretend these differences are "fake" ignores reality. There are competing political views that are natural outgrowths of human development and we would have these even in a Utopia where the masons have been finally defeated.

Furthermore, while the cold war served the national interest of the Soviets and America in many ways we can't pretend as if the whole thing was the result of willful collusion by the two parties. Fact is the cold war had a lot more to do with geopolitics and resource aquisition between two competing superpowers. This is why America used the cold war to cement its hold (often brutally) on central and south america. The danger was that left-leaning governments would send their resources to the USSR instead of to America - letting that occur without response would essentially be ceding treasure to America's #1 competitor. Competition in SE Asia was particularly bloody, and on top of the resource angle you had important geostrategic issues like naval lanes around East Timor, and protecting American strategic gains in the region in client states like Indonesia and the Philippines (both of which had extremely bloody "purges" of left-leaning political groups). The USSR, for its part, was operating in a similar neocolonial manner to ensure it had the resources to keep its economy going. If they were in such total collusion - then why did they each involve themselves in ultimately futile and horrendously costly missions in Vietnam and Afghanistan? They decided that it would be a good idea for them both to suffer major geostrategic, military and economic failures brought on by dumbass wars?

Resource competition and misguided conceptions geostrategy explain these wars far better than simplistic reductions as in the above video.

Both sides benefitted immensely by having the other as an enemy they could use to galvanize political support and mobilize their forces - but this does not mean the cold war was all an illusion used to that end - only that there were moments when their interests coincided (in addition to the many places they diverged).

Confronted with arguments like in the above video I can only conclude that they spring from a rather under-developed understanding of history and politics.

[praktik]

The biggest logical mistake in these ideas is viewing all wars, all politics as nothing but the self-serving creation of a nefarious elite, instead of viewing these things as dynamic, with input not just from the Masonic Overseers but also organically from the bottom up.

[praktik]

Ah here we go, from wiki:

"Griffin has been a member and officer of the conservative John Birch Society for much of his life[8][9] and a contributing editor to its magazine, The New American."

He also helped retired general Curtis Lemay in his Vice Presidential aspirations in the 60s, one of the more unhinged nuclear hawks who was a dangerous guy when he was involved in America's Strategic Air Command, apparently willing to unleash nuclear armageddon without presidential approval if he thought the circumstances merited it.

I totally got to thinking about the Welch accusation that Eisenhower was a communist agent, realizing it was a pretty good fit with the premise of this video.

This is the same JBS that brought us Cleon Skousen (who Glenn Beck is pimping these days) and the allegation that Eisenhower was a "communist agent":

Today, the mantle of McCarthy has fallen on a retired candy manufacturer, Robert H. Welch, Jr., who is less strategically placed and has a much smaller but better organized following than the Senator. A few years ago Welch proclaimed that “Communist influences are now in almost complete control of our government”—note the care and scrupulousness of that “almost.” He has offered a full scale interpretation of our recent history n which Communists figure at every turn: They started a run on American banks in 1933 that forced their closure; they contrived the recognition of the Soviet Union by the United States in the same year, just in time to save the Soviets from economic collapse; they have stirred up the fuss over segregation in the South; they have taken over the Supreme Court and made it “one of the most important agencies of Communism.”

Close attention to history wins for Mr. Welch an insight into affairs that is given to few of us. “For many reasons and after a lot of study,” he wrote some years ago, “I personally believe [John Foster] Dulles to be a Communist agent.” The job of Professor Arthur F. Burns as head of Eisenhower’s Council of Economic Advisors was “merely a cover-up for Burns’s liaison work between Eisenhower and some of his Communist bosses.” Eisenhower’s brother Milton was “actually [his] superior and boss within the Communist party.” As for Eisenhower himself, Welch characterized him, in words that have made the candy manufacturer famous, as “a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy”—a conclusion, he added, “based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt.”

This documentary sits on the wackiest part of the fringe right, and should be given just about as much credence as the lunacy of Skousen and Welch, both "fellow travellers" of Griffin.

[judge wopner]

Originally Posted by praktik

The biggest logical mistake in these ideas is viewing all wars, all politics as nothing but the self-serving creation of a nefarious elite, instead of viewing these things as dynamic, with input not just from the Masonic Overseers but also organically from the bottom up.

true,

i think this harkens back to other discussions about the usual right/left paradigm and how both sides are guilty of this or that.... much of one's views on either side of the political spectrum depend largely on their own life experience.

so you find that in ex communist bloc states there was a major shift away from communism in name only, but in reality much of the collective nature of the delivery of services (however meager they were before and after russian domination) the lack of democratic institutions and widespread corruption meant the same old same old.

people may have abhorred communism as they came to associate it with national slavery, yet have in states like Ukraine turned back towards mother russia now that the perceived beneifts of free-markets havent worked out to be the fairy tale they believed it to be.

i recall many a discussion where a self-professed leftist was mocked by an immigrant from the eastern bloc who proclaimed that even with years of study of communist or marxist ideals led to precious little in understanding what life under these philosophies was like, and how good we have it in our system here. likewise we have ample examples of people who proclaim that former russians are biased against thoeretical left leaning strategies simply because they lived under a perverted version of communism that isnt how it should be applied.

in both scenario's there is less debate and more conjecture about who can posses a credible opinion.

is capitalism really a failure if not everyone gets rich or at least middle class? is marxims a failure if inequality still exists? are failures of either system due to inherent ideologies or their misapplication and misappropriate by a corrupt leadership?

left vs. right does have some fundamental differences, and as someone else pointed out, many have come to be associated with left/right though they have little to do with the actual ideology (ie: abortion, legalization of drugs, gay marrige)

whats inherently paradoxical about conservatives that their left-leaning counterparts dont share is the idea of "less government" and "less regulation" but they generally favour more restrictive moral constraints on behavior (like gay marrige or drug policy).

[DaPhatConductor]

Originally Posted by praktik

The biggest logical mistake in these ideas is viewing all wars, all politics as nothing but the self-serving creation of a nefarious elite, instead of viewing these things as dynamic, with input not just from the Masonic Overseers but also organically from the bottom up.

I definitely agree with this statement.

You have missed the point of that video though. I really doubt anyone here actually watched it. Nobody is saying that the left/right paradigm was created by the PTB. This video just shows how both sides are funded + fostered by the PTB so that they can attempt to better influence global politics.

I'm starting to remember why I bailed on this forum...

[OTIS]

Originally Posted by praktik

Is this printed out anywhere in an article or something?

I've actually been doing a lot of reading on the revolutionary days in Russia and am hard-pressed to remember any evidence of foreign funding being a major factor in the bankrolling of the various revolutionary factions.

Well foreign funding was definitely a factor, but an anti-factor. The anti-Bolshevik White Army was funded partly by international international powers mostly western and central Europe, and supported internally by what was left of tsarist factions. It was largely a reactionary movement and nothing preconceived by capitalist interests. Mostly driven by traditionalism and anti-Bolshevism if anything even though the whites had no binding ideology at their core. This is all pre-Stalin/Soviet so maybe look a bit earlier for info on them.

[atbell]

Originally Posted by Dialog

I find the requirement to download a video player in order to view the entire thing highly suspicious. Perhaps even part of a conspiracy!

They completely flagged you for this one!

You better send me all your money in case they try and steal it from you ...




....

meh, one can hope

[atbell]

Originally Posted by SubMissioN

I don't see how one is as good or better then the other....its the same teeder todder conversation that goes nowhere. Almost as bad as separatists in Canada. Why do people argue about extremely polarized views instead of rethinking their approach to include something in between. I mean its fucking obvious that trading one extreme for another does absolutely nothing.

I think that 'selling' an idea to large amounts of people might be easier if the sales group vilifies the status quo completely and than shows how they are different in every way.

A real shame if that's the case because usually there are good parts to every political system that has been tried. Well, maybe not the Nazi's, unless you consider making the trains run on time a big positive political accomplishment.

[atbell]

Originally Posted by DaPhatConductor

That's the point of the video. In large part the left/right paradigm was fostered and taken advantage of so that the PTB could attempt control the entire ping pong match.

I really do recommend watching this video. From the looks of the comments not one of you actually watched it.

and re: the player - veoh.com is really great. so many awesome documentaries and movies and stuff. well worth downloading the web player.

I'm not downloading a new player to see one video until you write again telling me I should! Ha! If it's not worth your time to write another post why would I spend mine to download a player and watch a vid

[atbell]

Originally Posted by Mr. Magyar

The Left/Right distinction originated in France and it was based on French legislative bodies' seating arrangments in 1791. On the right of the king sat traditionalists and on the left sat radicals. It wasn't fostered on purpose by any stretch of the imagination by some vague "powers that be."

That's some kick ass trivia!

Can you back it up, I don't want to look too foolish if it ever slips out.

[praktik]

Originally Posted by OTIS

Well foreign funding was definitely a factor, but an anti-factor. The anti-Bolshevik White Army was funded partly by international international powers mostly western and central Europe, and supported internally by what was left of tsarist factions. It was largely a reactionary movement and nothing preconceived by capitalist interests. Mostly driven by traditionalism and anti-Bolshevism if anything even though the whites had no binding ideology at their core. This is all pre-Stalin/Soviet so maybe look a bit earlier for info on them.

Oh ya, one anecdote that pissed me right off in my high school politics class (this teacher remains one the best I ever had) about WWI was how there was a British boat that was on its way home after the end of the war, and instead of returning to loved ones they were redirected to Russia to help the Whites.

Didn't see much action but it really frustrated me to imagine myself in those soldiers shoes!

I still need to extend my Russian history back though I've only really been reading about just before and after the Revolution and WWII (come to think of it, would like to read some Cold War stuff too) so would be interested to read more on the Tsars and their alliances.