The Fabian Society
(www.omegatimes.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (13)
sorted by:
Interesting read. It is treason for all of them.
My thought...how could normal free minded humans with souls think these philosophies are acceptable in treating your fellow human beings?
How could sane honest people want to oppress others with socialism, knowing it is unfair and unjust?
I am really struggling with understanding this.
It's not socialism, it has rarely been achieved historically, this is globalism. Owning everything, or capitalising off of it. Socialism is a buzzword, often shouting, diversity, and opportunity but has failed to ever provide it. Instead it has achieved globalism in the form of credit and even more debt. Where you're also still trying to understand the benefits of a nation who cannot even feed its own population but instead relies solely on the debts of another. Any other socialists, are often even more oppressed, by some other form of tyranny.
What I struggle with is this society and the people to subscribe to its beliefs.
What person in their right mind, with just a modicum of human decency would believe that their beliefs will benefit mankind?
How could anyone believe that oppressing others is some how the appropriate way to treat others.
I imagine the WEF people sitting around discussing the things they put out and think how can they look at each other and think "Yea, this is going to help people". They have to either be sociopathic, lunatics, or not human.
It's not about helping people, it's about bettering yourself. It's the only rationality they have adopted. They want and need to control everything. Then society is how they intended. More for them of course. Geed rules the planet. They take a good intention, and corrupt it into their own. Because they sold their souls along long time ago. Or please convince me how they gained another intention.
Socialism isn't about helping people. What a load of bullshit. It's about controlling them all into the same power structures. Of course there are socialists, but these tend to be people away from civilization, and they aren't very sociable. But they live, trade, and whatever rather equally in the broader sense of it. There have been other attempts at it, but power corrupts.
Socialism today is either globalism, or tyranny. It's never anything else. Globalism has become tyranny. What kind of an idiot let's those people feed them. But their government does.
Benefit to mankind, hahaha, mankind was doing just fine without it. I mean seriously it's such an absurdly fictitious ideal of some quasi messiah, but but I taught them all math. No sooner did they get screwed. Or what? You invented the phone to hear all of them? Come on. Benefit to mankind. It was fine before and now it's probably going extinct. If these socialist would have it even sooner. But at least they're driving the EVs. Yawn.
Helping people to help you. I mean you got paid, you gained fame. Or are you really genuine? Some kind of teacher, writer, or simply religious? Perhaps even more useless a singer, painter, chef? It simply isn't found in so many cultures. Instead there is this blissful naivety you've provided something else. Perhaps because by larger comparison poor people of certain backgrounds and cultures are often more generous, rich people often didn't become it by being anything else to anybody else. A proven argument, who helps you first, culturally, you can literally knock on a poor person's door, they will provide, but a rich person will often turn you away. Philanthropy has nothing to do with it. Attitude. Of course I am not talking about begging. But genuinely in need. A timeless argument of the ages, nothing has changed, it's simply greedier. I should finish that thought. No need. But hardly western culture, possession and gain have caused the pursuit of, the removal of religion has caused, no, not always, depends on the locality. Certain people will always swear to benevolence of their benefactor, and the wickness of their class. Because fiction often provides something else. The expectancy of some other movie or vivid dream. All part of the con at betterment. The argument still holds. But suddenly you expected socialism to create equality. Nope?
Only the few suggesting the -isms can define; redefine and contradict them; while the consenting many can only reason (want vs not want; true vs false; believing vs not believing; is vs isn't etc.) among each other about the suggested meaning.
Have you ever defined an -ism for the many? How could your suggestion reach them without a mass communication infrastructure? Does the world wide web represents such an infrastructure and was it suggested by the few towards the consenting many?
How could a perceivable "it" aka something; be a "not" aka nothing?