We have seen how the Bolsheviks in Russia repressed the grassroots revolutionary movement and imposed a centralised authoritarian regime that declared war on small farmers and hitherto independent individuals, turning most of the population into powerless slaves to a giant industrial machine.
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power." George Orwell (1984)
"Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship." George Orwell (1984)
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks." Lord Acton
"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that." Lord Acton
While I agree with all of them, with regards to the first of your five global-mafia-project-countering "if we:" 's, to wit, "i. Prioritise decentralisation of power and promote the principle that this process should be continued to the lowest possible level, thus reversing the current power structure and restoring decision-making to the people.", there is the serious problem of the criminocracy's communitarian model false-bottom-up-consensus strategy.
Off topic Paul but have you seen the Great NHS documentary? 8 mins. in was a light bulb moment for me having recently finished reading your essay about the Rothschilds.
Accept the premise that all government is a false flag, any type any time. Work back from there. History proves this is so. If government worked to the benefit of the citizen (slaves), after 5,000 years at least few countries would be totally free where the citizen would be top dog.
I was right with you with every word (it's certainly how I feel about Marx, and would say he was an infiltrator/spy for the bankers and industrialists right from the start) - up to the point where you issued your 4 demands.
The first one, decentralisation, I can definitely go with.
The other three, which essentially amount to dismantling progress, I would vehemently oppose. Not because I am not in love with nature myself and live a lovely rural existence, no, not that. But I think you are making the classic mistake of being unable to separate the neutral technological progress from the 'bad guys' who control it. Take nuclear fission, for example - in the hands of the right people this can provide free energy to everyone - thus, ironically, it being free, liberates everyone.
Likewise the Internet. It's not the Internet's fault it's controlled by bad guys, is it?
And most importantly the 'central bank' - you are kind of suggesting that a central bank is 'unavoidably' controlled by 'the parasite class'. But why should that be so? Is it not possible to find some good people to control it and make sure everyone has enough money?! Or is that beyond the wit of humanity? (especially if you have decentralised branches, all linked together, but each of which is controlled by the local community).
What about all the wonders of the future, like interstellar travel? That requires very great cooperative projects, a burgeoning education, university, and research infrastructure, and so on. Why should all those people who would love to see such a beautiful future and be part of an interstellar community of civilisations be denied such wonders because you 'demand we dismantle progress and technology and force everyone back to living simple peasant existences'? Isn't this just the mirror image of what the Marxists and communists were saying?
I think humanity is capable of great things - and your demands would prevent that. And forcing them on everyone is the anathema of anarchism - which is about freedom.
So this would conflict with your demand no. 4, which is the autonomous freedom to choose - well what if I and my friends, my community, choose to pursue beautiful advanced technologies for the benefit of all? Will you prohibit my community from using digital platforms and central bank issued currency, even if it's the people, not the state, who own that currency supply? What if my brother or sister doesn't want to be forced to work the land? What if they are rubbish at it! Didn't the Bolsheviks force highly skilled and educated engineers to sweep factory floors?
Then there's culture - how can everyone partake in culture if we've cut off global communications and there aren't any drama schools anymore?
And so on, and so on.
I think it's perfectly possible to have a system which accommodates both those who wish to live rural lives and those who wish to embrace a utopian advanced tech future. It's not either or.
The problem, as I have suggested lots of times, is the monsters themselves, not the neutral unconscious 'stuff', like technology and money and so on. Remove the monsters and we can have any society we wish. Or, better still, a variety of societies, then everyone gets the freedom to choose which kind of socio-cultural environment they want to live in.
So whilst I agree with the sentiment behind your 4 demands, I really think you should iron out the contradictions and find different wording for them. Otherwise, a lot of people are going to take offence, be turned off, and portray you as, horror of horrors, a Marxist in disguise... And I know that's not what you are!
''After World War I, I made my living in Paris, now as a retoucher at a photographer’s, now as painter of “Chinese antiquities” (made in France!). I would distribute leaflets denouncing the crimes committed by the French colonialists in Viet Nam.
At that time, I supported the October Revolution only instinctively, not yet grasping all its historic importance. I loved and admired Lenin because he was a great patriot who liberated his compatriots; until then, I had read none of his books.
The reason for my joining the French Socialist Party was that these “ladies and gentlemen” - as I called my comrades at that moment - has shown their sympathy towards me, towards the struggle of the oppressed peoples. But I understood neither what was a party, a trade-union, nor what was socialism nor communism.
Heated discussions were then taking place in the branches of the Socialist Party, about the question whether the Socialist Party should remain in the Second International, should a Second and a half International be founded or should the Socialist Party join Lenin’s Third International? I attended the meetings regularly, twice or thrice a week and attentively listened to the discussion. First, I could not understand thoroughly. Why were the discussions so heated? Either with the Second, Second and a half or Third International, the revolution could be waged. What was the use of arguing then? As for the First International, what had become of it?
What I wanted most to know - and this precisely was not debated in the meetings - was: which International sides with the peoples of colonial countries?
I raised this question - the most important in my opinion - in a meeting. Some comrades answered: It is the Third, not the Second International. And a comrade gave me Lenin’s “Thesis on the national and colonial questions” published by l'Humanite to read.
There were political terms difficult to understand in this thesis. But by dint of reading it again and again, finally I could grasp the main part of it. What emotion, enthusiasm, clear-sightedness and confidence it instilled into me! I was overjoyed to tears. Though sitting alone in my room, I shouted out aloud as if addressing large crowds: “Dear martyrs compatriots! This is what we need, this is the path to our liberation!”
After then, I had entire confidence in Lenin, in the Third International.
Formerly, during the meetings of the Party branch, I only listened to the discussion; I had a vague belief that all were logical, and could not differentiate as to who were right and who were wrong. But from then on, I also plunged into the debates and discussed with fervour. Though I was still lacking French words to express all my thoughts, I smashed the allegations attacking Lenin and the Third International with no less vigour. My only argument was: “If you do not condemn colonialism, if you do not side with the colonial people, what kind of revolution are you waging?”....''
Excellent summary!
Reading this piece, a few quotes came to mind:
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power." George Orwell (1984)
"Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship." George Orwell (1984)
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks." Lord Acton
"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that." Lord Acton
While I agree with all of them, with regards to the first of your five global-mafia-project-countering "if we:" 's, to wit, "i. Prioritise decentralisation of power and promote the principle that this process should be continued to the lowest possible level, thus reversing the current power structure and restoring decision-making to the people.", there is the serious problem of the criminocracy's communitarian model false-bottom-up-consensus strategy.
Off topic Paul but have you seen the Great NHS documentary? 8 mins. in was a light bulb moment for me having recently finished reading your essay about the Rothschilds.
Accept the premise that all government is a false flag, any type any time. Work back from there. History proves this is so. If government worked to the benefit of the citizen (slaves), after 5,000 years at least few countries would be totally free where the citizen would be top dog.
The irony of the bolshevik revolution was that before it, the people actually had the power under the czar in a semi anarchist system.
The royalty lived in luxury but they were indebted to the people.
The people ran the production... Hmm where did we hear that from? 😂
I was right with you with every word (it's certainly how I feel about Marx, and would say he was an infiltrator/spy for the bankers and industrialists right from the start) - up to the point where you issued your 4 demands.
The first one, decentralisation, I can definitely go with.
The other three, which essentially amount to dismantling progress, I would vehemently oppose. Not because I am not in love with nature myself and live a lovely rural existence, no, not that. But I think you are making the classic mistake of being unable to separate the neutral technological progress from the 'bad guys' who control it. Take nuclear fission, for example - in the hands of the right people this can provide free energy to everyone - thus, ironically, it being free, liberates everyone.
Likewise the Internet. It's not the Internet's fault it's controlled by bad guys, is it?
And most importantly the 'central bank' - you are kind of suggesting that a central bank is 'unavoidably' controlled by 'the parasite class'. But why should that be so? Is it not possible to find some good people to control it and make sure everyone has enough money?! Or is that beyond the wit of humanity? (especially if you have decentralised branches, all linked together, but each of which is controlled by the local community).
What about all the wonders of the future, like interstellar travel? That requires very great cooperative projects, a burgeoning education, university, and research infrastructure, and so on. Why should all those people who would love to see such a beautiful future and be part of an interstellar community of civilisations be denied such wonders because you 'demand we dismantle progress and technology and force everyone back to living simple peasant existences'? Isn't this just the mirror image of what the Marxists and communists were saying?
I think humanity is capable of great things - and your demands would prevent that. And forcing them on everyone is the anathema of anarchism - which is about freedom.
So this would conflict with your demand no. 4, which is the autonomous freedom to choose - well what if I and my friends, my community, choose to pursue beautiful advanced technologies for the benefit of all? Will you prohibit my community from using digital platforms and central bank issued currency, even if it's the people, not the state, who own that currency supply? What if my brother or sister doesn't want to be forced to work the land? What if they are rubbish at it! Didn't the Bolsheviks force highly skilled and educated engineers to sweep factory floors?
Then there's culture - how can everyone partake in culture if we've cut off global communications and there aren't any drama schools anymore?
And so on, and so on.
I think it's perfectly possible to have a system which accommodates both those who wish to live rural lives and those who wish to embrace a utopian advanced tech future. It's not either or.
The problem, as I have suggested lots of times, is the monsters themselves, not the neutral unconscious 'stuff', like technology and money and so on. Remove the monsters and we can have any society we wish. Or, better still, a variety of societies, then everyone gets the freedom to choose which kind of socio-cultural environment they want to live in.
So whilst I agree with the sentiment behind your 4 demands, I really think you should iron out the contradictions and find different wording for them. Otherwise, a lot of people are going to take offence, be turned off, and portray you as, horror of horrors, a Marxist in disguise... And I know that's not what you are!
To eliminate the global mafia you might have to eradicate the entire species.🤔
''After World War I, I made my living in Paris, now as a retoucher at a photographer’s, now as painter of “Chinese antiquities” (made in France!). I would distribute leaflets denouncing the crimes committed by the French colonialists in Viet Nam.
At that time, I supported the October Revolution only instinctively, not yet grasping all its historic importance. I loved and admired Lenin because he was a great patriot who liberated his compatriots; until then, I had read none of his books.
The reason for my joining the French Socialist Party was that these “ladies and gentlemen” - as I called my comrades at that moment - has shown their sympathy towards me, towards the struggle of the oppressed peoples. But I understood neither what was a party, a trade-union, nor what was socialism nor communism.
Heated discussions were then taking place in the branches of the Socialist Party, about the question whether the Socialist Party should remain in the Second International, should a Second and a half International be founded or should the Socialist Party join Lenin’s Third International? I attended the meetings regularly, twice or thrice a week and attentively listened to the discussion. First, I could not understand thoroughly. Why were the discussions so heated? Either with the Second, Second and a half or Third International, the revolution could be waged. What was the use of arguing then? As for the First International, what had become of it?
What I wanted most to know - and this precisely was not debated in the meetings - was: which International sides with the peoples of colonial countries?
I raised this question - the most important in my opinion - in a meeting. Some comrades answered: It is the Third, not the Second International. And a comrade gave me Lenin’s “Thesis on the national and colonial questions” published by l'Humanite to read.
There were political terms difficult to understand in this thesis. But by dint of reading it again and again, finally I could grasp the main part of it. What emotion, enthusiasm, clear-sightedness and confidence it instilled into me! I was overjoyed to tears. Though sitting alone in my room, I shouted out aloud as if addressing large crowds: “Dear martyrs compatriots! This is what we need, this is the path to our liberation!”
After then, I had entire confidence in Lenin, in the Third International.
Formerly, during the meetings of the Party branch, I only listened to the discussion; I had a vague belief that all were logical, and could not differentiate as to who were right and who were wrong. But from then on, I also plunged into the debates and discussed with fervour. Though I was still lacking French words to express all my thoughts, I smashed the allegations attacking Lenin and the Third International with no less vigour. My only argument was: “If you do not condemn colonialism, if you do not side with the colonial people, what kind of revolution are you waging?”....''
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1960/04/x01.htm