I received this email from a blog reader in Italy. I thought her perspectives on what we argue about in the blog were so interesting. Apparently it's no big deal to be a member of the Communist party in Italy at all. Read on and tell her what you think in the comments section:
I've been reading your blog for a while now and I keep marvelling at myself for how many things I discover each day about Americans.
I think it's because we all build the idea of foreigners on some form of "prejudice": as there are not that many chances for each European to travel overseas and check how is America, we base our idea of U.S.A. on books, music, films and TV.
And you see, here's already a first mistake: America = U.S.A? America is a continent, it should refer to the whole area from Alaska way down to Patagonia, yet if I write America, most of the time I refer to the States.
With these knowledge/prejudices set in our mind, it happens that sometimes we find some confirmation, but more often that we discover that things are different.
With your blog and reading the news I'm finding myself more and more in this situation where I don't really understand what is going on.
For example: growing up in an atheist family in very catholic Italy, I thought there was not another country in the West were religion impacted heavily on the politic side of life. I thought that there are not many places in Europe were you get to see the Pope in the news at least once a week like here in Italy (always on Sunday, sometimes with a live from Vatican City and then once or twice a week on each main TV channels). Yet, by reading the blog I'm discovering a country where the power of some Church are quite strong both on economics and politics and where opinions are felt very strongly.
And how about politics?
Is there really people thinking that the Obama government is radicalizing America and pushing it to socialism?
(Btw: when I told a colleague in U.S. that I come from a communist family and that yes, my family always voted for the communist party, because yes, in Italy we had a legal communist party sitting in the parliament, he was quite surprised. He couldn't believe that I could be so relaxed about it, as it were the most normal thing in the world, and that I could believe in human rights. I though it weirder that he was so shocked about it)
Has it something to do with the "tea parties"?
And this is another thing I can't understand: what is there to fear in having a public health system? Italy has one and, despite the problems and lack of quality here and there, I would never think of it as a socialist element, also cause it was created in the way it is today by the democratic cristian governement (which means very moderate and conservative) in the 50s.
What's wrong with paying some taxes if this will grant people of different social areas access to hospital and medical assistance? It's not socialist to take care of society: isn't it a part of the pursuit of happiness?
14 comments:
Yes, some people really do think Obama is pushing the US more toward socialism, partly because that is what he promised to do with his vague Marxist sounding campaign promises, his takeover of the banks and auto industries, and his appointment of so many self avowed socialists and communists to his cabinet and advisory positions. That is just window dressing though, offered to a nation reeling from the previous administration, the major policies of which Obama continues. More war, more free trade, more fake environmentalism, more taxes, more corporate control of government at every level.
America is full of people wanting the government to take from their neighbors and give to them and Obama was more than happy during his campaign to promise to do just this. Of course he was just lying and building up false hopes, because when he came into office the government was already so over extended with social programs and war making there is no more to give.
Religion has served, and does serve now, merely as a convenient cover for the advancement of corporatist government.
Has your Italian reader ever heard of the bill of rights? She speaks as if the idea of human rights is an idea unique to the now largely defunct European communist movement; a perspective that is quite natural given the European attitude of fawning to whatever monarch, dictator, or "progressive" authority is in power. To her it must seem that the idea of human rights, never fulfilled by any communist party anywhere, is a fresh and novel idea.
To a communist though, or at least to those who have lived in communist countries, human rights have meant the right to live in constant poverty under constant threat of authoritarian bureacracies. Obama has indeed signed many executive orders seeking to create such a system here, a police state that has been growing since Richard Nixon was in power.
Marty- You're such an ignorant Fuck. I'll bet you're a card carrying member of the Tea party movement along with the other right wingnuts.
Every time you post something like the above you show your ass.
You don't like Obama cause he's black the way you hate Jews. Why? Cause you're a racist pig.
Why don't you pack up your conspiracy theories and go crawl back under whichever rock is was you were hatched under.
You're still slimy no matter what you say.
Communist police state? I hate to break this to you asshole, but it was your beloved bullshit politics and fairy tales from the fringe that have been a problem for a long time which is why we have too much government interference.
It was your kind that blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma just like it was and is your kind that preach hate.
You're still pathetic asshole.
Hey Marty~ Was that your asshole brother who just flew his plane into the IRS building in Austin Texas?
Betcha that you're real proud of that pilot aren't you Marty.
Oh, here, for those of you that aren't aware of this yet another 'fringe freak' like Marty did this today:
Thursday, February 18, 2010
SUICIDE MISSION: Pilot Crashes Plane Into IRS Building In Austin, Texas
A private plane has crashed into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, killing the pilot and his passenger. It appears that the pilot burned his own house down prior to boarding the plane and left a long rambling manifesto decrying the U.S. government's bailout of General Motors, among other things.
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.
Thank you for that refreshing perspective Rodger.
Tim McVeigh bombed the Murrah building because the government killed all those people at Waco and because the government murdered Randy Weaver's family at Ruby Ridge under the pretense of a phoney weapons charge. McVeigh learned to build that bomb in the US military, which try as it might, has yet to slaughter the number of humans the various communist regimes of the last century disposed of.
Socialists have such a tendency to be like you Rodger, profane, intolerant, self-righteous- in short encapsulating the very characteristics they promise they can save the world from.
Wow, yes, a nice argument: more death to protest death sounds like a brilliant idea. No sense at all that McVeigh was mentally ill. Like other people we might mention.
I wasn't defending McVeigh, Anonymous, I was just restating the reasons he reportedly gave for the bombing.
It was the Clinton administration that killed those people at Waco and Ruby Ridge in their drive to outaw gun ownership. That is a case of killing to prevent the possibility of killing, a concept wholly palatable to you socialists, apparently, for you ever defend the government when it undertakes such endeavors, especially if the government is a leftist government. It's okay as long as your side is doing it. In fact you support only the government having guns, so only the government will have the power to kill. That's progressive.
Sorry to break it to you, Marty, but human rights to me are an idea that goes beyond a polital system or theory, far more ancient than the bill of rights or Marx & Engels: a concept that human society developed though out their history and in constant evolution still today, a far more complicated matter than a government system, as it implies politics, religion, ethics and philosophy.
Human rights are not a private property of dictatorship regime, of course.
Nor I ever stated of having lived in a "communist heaven", did I?
We could discuss whether any government ever managed to grant human rights to the people, surely, but an eye for an eye is not a good starting point, not for judging history nor for judging contemporary world politics.
We could also discuss on how each political movement promoted itself to the ultimate defense for human rights against "the others".
Or we could discuss about the careless way words like "leftist", "communist" and "socialist" are used: they're not the same thing to me and seeing people swapping them causes a big deal of confusion.
But that was not the main topic of my mail. I was rather more interested in trying to understand the impact of religious organizations on society and politics, why such a thing that to an Italian seem obvious like the introduction of a National Health Service is seen as a threat by some people.
Still, after reading the comments, I'm curious about something and let's see if somebody can explain it to me in a very simple English (treat me as if I were 5 years-old, most of the time I behave like that anyway).
Marty wrote:
"Obama has indeed signed many executive orders seeking to create such a system here, a police state that has been growing since Richard Nixon was in power."
What does it mean that the police state has been growing since Nixon was in power? Does it mean that Nixon and Obama belong to the same secret organization (a socialist one, doubtless)? And do you need to be a President of the U.S.A. to be part of it?
-the Italian reader
As a matter of fact, Italian Reader, Obama and Nixon did both belong to a semi-secret organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a spinoff of the Round Table Groups, now known as the Royal Institute of Affairs.
Today the RIA is operating an organization known as Common Purpose, a global socialist organization that began in the UK:
British arm: http://www.commonpurpose.org/courses/chathamhouserule.aspx
American arm: http://www.commonpurposeproject.org
/
True to its socialist roots this is not a democratic organization, it merely uses democracy as a buzzword to influence people to accept its goal, which is the establishment of global communitarianism, a master/slave global state of elitists and peasants, true to all socialist and communist regimes of the past.
Common purpose is an organization that recruits people in leadership positions to act outside their sphere of authority to promote the goals of Common Purpose:
"We develop leaders who can lead beyond their direct area of authority. Who can lead partnerships as well as organisations. Who can produce change even when they can't instruct or elicit trust in familiar ways." http://www.commonpurpose.org/about/charter.aspx
Common Pupose is an organization that seeks to subvert the laws of the various nations it operates in by infiltrating government, education, and non-governmental organizations- it uses techniques similar to those used by Werner Eckhardt in the EST seminars of the 70's in seminars it gives worldwide.
Even in our local backwater Common Pupose has been holding meetings under Chatham House rules involving the local school districts and other local governmental groups.
The primary mechanism the goals of Common Purpose are to be promoted through are the environmental proposals of Agenda 21, dependent on the spectre of global warming, increasingly seen to be a fraud as the resignation of the IPCC director should indicate to anyone with half a brain. This movement only appeals to those idiots who believe that paying a carbon tax to central banks, on top of all other taxes already paid, will serve the good of society- how, pray tell, does destroying prosperity increase the level of good in a world society already faced with the problem of too little for all?
Of course, true Marxist-Leninists believe that the pain of a generation is neglible compared to the glory of the promised thousand years of social good. Ha ha. Let the peasants starve.
Take a look at this statement by David Lang, one of the attendees of the Fourth World Wilderness Council, which kicked off the program leading up to the production of the Agenda 21 document at the Rio Summit:
"I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process - that would take too long and devour far too much of the funds - to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth. We have to take almost an elitist program, [so] that we can see beyond our swollen bellies, and look to the future in timeframes and in results which are not easily understood, or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition."
That is what your communist egalitarianism boils down to in the end, statements like this from the powerful bankers who are at the root of Common Purpose and related projects. Democracy is not a part of the process building the vast security states required through free trade agreements and World Bank development loans.
Don't worry about religious objection to these global socialist plans, all the major religions in the US have already been co-opted into the environmentalist movement through 501(c)3 affiliation with the government. What you see on the tv and in this blog is just what you would see if you were to watch the popular wrestling extravaganzas on American tv; it's just play and posturing.
Marty, I notice you're very fond of taking something someone has said (usually some one no one has heard of and speaking a long time ago) and suggesting there is some significance to it.
The quote from this "David Lang" (who he?) is another example. I could attend some conference or other, present a paper and make a speech, which would then be faithfully recorded in the proceedings. Twenty years later you could then read said proceedings and say "This is what investment banker Mel Thomas, one of the world's leading socialists/communists/environmentalists says. Look what the money men want to do with the world!".
And you've compounded this with a variant of Six Degrees of Separation - quoting what what was said at some conference which "kicked off the programme leading up to the production" of some document of which no one's heard at a summit of which most of the world is only vaguely aware.
And you think this is supposed to prove something?
Plenty of people have heard of the 4th World Wilderness Conference and David Lang. Lang was a banker with Royal Bank of Canada attending with Micheal Sweetman and Maurice Strong, Edmund de Rothschild, James Baker, and William Ruckleshaus.
The bankers represented about 10% of the attendees and ran the economic and financial aspects of the conference, and it was here that Rothschild proposed two significant things: the formation of a Word Conservation Bank and a new Marshall Plan for Russia.
The idea behind the World Conservation Bank was that nations signatory to an upcoming treaty (Rio Accords) would offer their wilderness land as collateral to the Bank in exchange for fiat money the third world nations, heavily in debt at the time, could use to pay off loans to the first world banks who were in trouble over these loans- the scheme would allow the first world banks to clear their balance sheets with funny money issued on land. This would of course be highly inflationary (not that that matters to bankers, who realize that inflation transfers real wealth from debtors to creditors, hence the need for collateral).
Secondly, the new Marshall Plan was proposed two years before the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. At the end of the conference this scheme was put into the list of resolutions by Rothschild (when no one had agreed to it) and Rothschild reopened the Frankfurt branch of the family mom and pop banking business, just in time for the collapse of Soviet Russia; this bank then served as the exchange bank for the 44+ billion of aid that went from the US and the IMF to the former Soviet countries.
Ruckleshaus was the first head of the US's Environmental Protection Agency; at the time of the 4th WWC he was a vice president at Weyerhaeuser (which profited greatly from the denuding of the rain forests in South America). At that time he was known as "Mr. Environment" and has since gone on to serve as director of many of the very corporations seen by greenies as raping the earth.
Feeling high after the conference, Ruckleshaus, Strong, Sweetman, Lang, and others attempted to gain control of the water supply of the Baca Valley and sell it off, leaving the Valley depleted of water. The scandal over this led to Strong having to leave the US, he now resides in China.
Lang's statement and the behavior of these other financiers shows the attitude they have toward the rest of us, and why they should not be allowed to setting up this worldwide carbon trading scheme, which is a refinement of the World Conservation Bank; the problem with the WCB was that it had no earnings driver. That problem would be handily solved if all the nations would agree to implement carbon taxes and pay them into this central conservation bank.
Such a bank would naturally then have control over all the world's wilderness areas, to do as it pleased with the resources therein; population expansion would be restricted because of simple lack of legally available space.
All this may not prove anything, but it does show the intent of these people who are at the real forefront of the global warming scandal; they created it and started doing it less than ten years after their media conglomerates were promoting a coming ice age. Their intent is to get control of all the world's resources and they have been making good headway because they know people don't pay attention to what they are doing.
Perhaps it would be better for a few corporations and their selected politicians to rule the world- clearly democracy has failed as we can only vote for officeholders and cannot rely on them to uphold their stated campaign policies- they do counter to what they campaign on in many cases and it is always in favor of this growing global corporatism.
Maurice Strong does not give up easily: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover042005.htm
Wherever huge sums of money and the environment can be brought together, there you will find Strong.
Because you watched the Super Bowl you no doubt saw the Audi ads promoting the idea of green police with authority over the civil police. This is an idea being advanced in the UK as well as in the US. It is an idea that can be readily supported by leftists who support the fraudulent global warming theory.
On the other hand, for all those who identify themselves on the right or as conservatives, there is the spectre of hoards of terrorists intent on the destruction of the western world. So increased anti-terroism policing has about the same number of supporters as increased environmental policing, the two sides of the paradigm being more or less equally split. Here is an example of this lunacy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest
Above a couple of men having fun with a new camera are charged with anti-social behavior for taking pictures in the town center, and duly arrested for this suspicious anti-social behavior- released after 8 hours with no charges. Of course, this doesn't prove there is a growing police state, but such a thing would not have happened 10 years ago. Now it is becoming more and more commonplace for citizens to be harrassed for nothing other than to reinforce the idea of submission to authority.
This does not differ from the era of political correctness Lenin created in which the people were trained to be self-policing and to inform on friends and family.
On the one hand one cannot question global warming without being widely censured, and one cannot question the spectre of terrorism without being similarly censured. Evidence of the senses does not matter, compliance to created norms counts for all.
"NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors” In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO's 'should be in jail... for all of eternity."
In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds," stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them "not a threat, but a prediction."
In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel's climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists."
Then, on the other hand we have:
"Americans who turn to terrorism and plot against the U.S. are now as big a concern as international terrorists, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Sunday."
So is this why Obama proposes the creation of a Domestic Security Force as large, as powerful, and as well funded as the US military? What are we going to do about these global warming deniers and homegrown terrorists? Both are a clear threat to national security. Interesting to note, Napolitano is an Obama appointee who encapsulates both fear of global warming and fear of terrorists.
From the New York Times: "Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html
Hehe...global warming deniers are as much a threat to national security as terrorists, mabye moreso! If we dont destroy industrial civilization now through global legislation we will have to do it later through military means! I am scared shitless! Might we at some point have to pre-emptively strike China to make them quit building coal fired power plants? It certainly looks that way, what with the melting of the ice caps threatening military bases and polar bears forgetting how to swim and all.
It was Maurice Strong who was the figurehead for this entire sham, supported by prominent figures on both the left and right sides of the political sepctrum. By the way, Strong was stripped of all his UN awards (including his environmental ones) for taking part in the Oil for Food theft alonside Tongsun Parks. That's why he lives in China now, so he can't face prosecution.
"Global Warming is Now Officially Considered a Threat to U.S. National Security"
This is from the Department of Homeland Security http://www.hsdl.org/hslog/?q=node/5348
Do you honestly think there is no trend forming here Mel? The Department of Homeland Security was formed under the Patriot Act in response to 911 and has now moved into the area of global warming.
We fought the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnamese War, all the covert operations in Asia and South America against communism, and now 20 years after the collapse of Soviet Russia China has most favored nation status and our newly formed DHS embraces an idea formed and promoted by the extreme left? Shit, Gorbachev was co-author of the Earth Charter, along with Maurice Strong! 17 of the 25 new EU commissioners are communists, and it is these same EU nations who have most strongly advocated for ratification of Agenda 21 and acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol. And the imperialist US military now embraces the same ideology? Don't you think this is just a little bit odd?
Post a Comment