|View single post by Joe Kelley|
|Posted: Tue Aug 28th, 2018 07:23 pm||
If the phrase "...does not exist in a vacuum..." means something along the lines of "...openly try to influence..." as in: infiltrate, subjugate, subdue, manipulate, and usurp, then I think your take on what was or was not the Communists (Trademark?), the Anarchists, and the Utopians is superficial, if not simply wrong.
A more clear example of what was not operating in a vacuum is the Patriots working to organically create a federation of free markets, free people, in free, independent states, under the common law. The federal people, working to organically create, and maintain a federation were not working in a vacuum. Any seats of authority left unfilled by volunteers working to organically create, and maintain a federation were filled with criminal usurpers, frauds, cheats, slave traders, warmongers, criminal British agents, and central banking prostitutes.
First checking evidence on the "Real Communists:"
"Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the “educated” classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it. "
Utopian, socialist/anarchist, was represented by Fourier and Owen, just before Proudom coined the label anarchism as "free market," do no harm, independent, and the sovereignty of the individual. Clearly in the Communist Manifesto 1788 edition, quoted above, the "Real Communists" (TM) were as openly criminal as the slave trading fake Federalist Party, an in your face declaration of dependence, whereby those "Real Communists" openly called for violent, criminal, offensive, take-over of power over all people. Sure there was, and always will be, a thin covering of nice talk, which has only one purpose, and has nothing to do with honor, promise, responsibility, accountability, peace, or justice. That type of doublespeak, that thin coating of good feeling verbiage, salted with a healthy dose of vengeance as a reward for obedience, is just a copy - the Communists copy - of the fake Federalist criminal usurpation by deceit, threat of aggressive violence, and real examples of aggressive violence where dead bodies start piling up in mass graves.
If you look into works like Anthony Sutton's work, it is actually the American fake Federal Criminal Gang - thinly hidden behind a government facade - represented by "Wall Street" financing the "Real Communist" criminal gang.
As to the benchmark in the 18th century set by the fake Federalist Party, setting the example to follow for all future usurpations such as the "Real Communist Party," there is ample evidence proving this fact of wolves hiding in sheep's clothing.
Friday, June 20, 1788
"He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists."
As to breaking windows, or throwing tea in a harbor, to agitate, to go on the offensive, violently, destructively, to break the peace, by anyone, anywhere, anytime, there was, and is a peaceful alternative.
If those in power claim to have lawful authority then they can prove it, or prove otherwise, when the people gather organically into grand juries, according to the laws that those in power claim to be the source of their power, and if the people suspect, have probable cause to suspect, that those in power are guilty, then those in power can agree to their trial by jury.
If those in power somehow claim to have the power to raise their pay at will, and place themselves above the law, claiming immunity from prosecution, then that is a clue for the clueless.
As to the so-called poor whites, poor blacks, poor any race whatsoever, the claims made by Mark Twain notwithstanding, our world, in peace, is abundant with every power required to create almost unlimited wealth, for all, and that ought to be known as a fact because it is a fact, a powerful one.
Those who claim otherwise are often reaching into the victims pocket while saying so.
As to what you consider to be involuntary, or voluntary, and my working meaning of those words, I can say that we do not share the same working meaning of those words.
As to modern labels such as Fascist and Crony Capitalism, there is again that benchmark of a criminal gang operating under the color of law, those fake "Federalist" Party members, and the words of warning from Thomas Paine about those criminals, setting that benchmark.
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property."
A profitable monopoly and the people as slaves, under the color of law, by any name is still the same thing.