ARE SOCIALISTIC FORCES USING COVID19

[Refirened]

Democracy is indispensable to socialism.

Vladimir Lenin ( Socialist )

Democracy is the road to socialism.

Karl Marx ( Socialist )​

Famous socialists believed that democracy would eventually lead to socialism and it appears that this is what is now happening. I think the socialists knew that slowly but gradually through a frog in a kettle approach people could be manipulated and coerced into giving up their rights and liberties in exchange for the illusion of temporary peace and safety. I think the founding Fathers of America knew this which was why Benjamin Franklin warned.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin​

After all is it not through a false illusion of peace and safety that the man of sin the Antichrist according to the prophecies will destroy many and how can that happen except through a misplaced trust in what he will offer and no marvel for Satan himself according to the Scriptures appears as an angel of light to those he deceives.

Socialism seems to seek to create adult children who through indoctrination are taught to become subservient to their oppressively controlling and dictatorial parental state who at the same time somehow brainwashes its victims into trusting and loving their abusers.

These socialistic systems through fear of social and financial persecution seem to manipulate their citizens into states of passivity in subservience to the interests and agendas of the state which at the same time promote an ever increasing Anti Christian messages and lifestyle and culture. These systems seem to seek to infiltrate many areas of society in order to expand its power and influence desiring to exploit areas which have not yet been exploited. It seems to gain entry on premise of supplying new types of benefits and comforts and securities in exchange for more subjugation of its citizens sovereignties simultaneously empowering the entities ability to control the will of the populace . This Antichrist system that is arising is demanding subservience to it likewise and a misplaced trust means theirs little resistance to the beast it is birthing.

Revelation 13:16-17

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.​

I would advise you to listen to the warning from John F Kennedy's speech in the link below as he warned that their was a powerful force at work with a plan to work through an announced need for increased security to bring about its goal of complete domination.

What if the Holy Spirit inside of Christians is the restrainer and what if we decided not to let this evil advance and prevail through rising up in prayer to destroy the devices of the enemy .

2 Thessalonians 2:7 (KJV)

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
​

 

[Jamesone5]

There is a lot of truth in what you post here and I would mostly agree.

But the most vocal force here in America would be appalled by anyone suggesting we are heading towards socialism as that is what they pretend to fight. The frog in the kettle seem to be an apt description.

 

[childeye 2]

The dichotomy as pertains to power in government is Democracy/Autocracy. As pertains to the economy, the current state of affairs is that 80% of the entire economy is actually a handful of corporations. So where exactly does socialism factor in? Is it in breaking up oligarchies or investing in a corporation?

 

[Jamesone5]

The dichotomy is Democracy/Autocracy. As pertains to the economy, the current state of affairs is that 80% of the entire economy is actually a handful of corporations. So where exactly does socialism factor in? Is it in breaking up oligarchies or in investing in a corporation?

You asking me?
Because if you are----the 80% of the economy being in a handful of corporations would indicate more of a move towards the socialism model. Where is the individual voice in what we can buy?

 

[childeye 2]

You asking me?
Because if you are----the 80% of the economy being in a handful of corporations would indicate more of a move towards the socialism model. Where is the individual voice in what we can buy?

Sorry. I posted immediately after you did, thinking I was the first response. I was addressing the op.

In regards to your response however, it sounds like you would agree that corporations are like factional socialism in a quasi-capitalistic framework. I'm not sure what your question is meant to imply since it sounds rhetorical.

 

[bèlla]

We are returning to earlier times when disparity was pronounced and the few ruled all. Society is stratified. Separate and unequal is the theme. Left behind is the result. Many will suffer.

~Bella

 

[Silmarien]

Insofar as social democrats are using the pandemic as an opportunity to try to push through the types of economic changes that we believe are necessary to actually face a crisis like this--stronger social nets, in the United States, socialized medicine--yes, people are trying to use Covid-19.

The far leftists you can find at places like Jacobin Magazine would no doubt love to use it to overturn society altogether, but I'm pretty sure most of them are just talk. Power concentrated in the hands of the corporations, however, is the last thing they would want to see.

 

[Refirened]

The dichotomy as pertains to power in government is Democracy/Autocracy. As pertains to the economy, the current state of affairs is that 80% of the entire economy is actually a handful of corporations. So where exactly does socialism factor in? Is it in breaking up oligarchies or investing in a corporation?

Its a fact that most of the mainstream media is owned by just 6 monopolies which behind are something like 15 billionaire's so information which is programing peoples beliefs is gradually becoming more controlled and censored which is what JFK warned about it his speach.

He warned that those behind this dangerous agenda even back then have and seek to infiltrate every area of society to expand their influence and achieve their goals of domination.

Capitalists who are seeking to advance the ideals of socialism to bring about a one world socialistic system whether through lobbying or promoting evolving new strains of old ideals such as democratic socialism are ultimately socialists and the influential powers behind politics.

 

[childeye 2]

Its a fact that most of the mainstream media is owned by just 6 monopolies which behind are something like 15 billionaire's so information which is programing peoples beliefs is gradually becoming more controlled and censored which is what JFK warned about it his speach.

He warned that those behind this dangerous agenda even back then have and seek to infiltrate every area of society to expand their influence and achieve their goals of domination.

Capitalists who are seeking to advance the ideals of socialism to bring about a one world socialistic system whether through lobbying or promoting evolving new strains of old ideals such as democratic socialism are ultimately socialists and the influential powers behind politics.

I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that there exists a dichotomy called Democracy/Autocracy. It represents in politics, objectively speaking, two narratives that run counter to one another in degrees of influence, but also wherein trying to achieve either one's absolute is not only self destructive to society but also impossible to achieve in any absolute sense.

Likewise socialism and capitalism fall under the same umbrella since socialism is publicly owned and capitalism is privately owned in degrees as pertains to an economy. This necessarily means that finding the proper balance between the two opposing ideals produces the best outcome for society in the objective view.

What if you're a capitalist who doesn't believe in one or few owning everything? Why would it be wrong to work things toward the middle via socialism, when what's bad for society is working both ends against the middle?

As for the media. We won't see the objective view of the issue coming from any propagandist working in media. So also we can see them when they talk subjectively of the other side of the dichotomy as if the other side is all bad.

 

[timothyu]

It's not like the two don't work together outside of the S. of A.

 

[Refirened]

I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that there exists a dichotomy called Democracy/Autocracy. It represents in politics, objectively speaking, two narratives that run counter to one another in influence, wherein trying to achieve either one's absolute is not only self destructive to society but also impossible to achieve in any absolute sense.

Likewise socialism and capitalism fall under the same umbrella since socialism is publicly owned and capitalism is privately owned as pertains to an economy. This necessarily means that finding the proper balance between the two opposing ideals produces the best outcome for society in the objective view.

What if you're a capitalist who doesn't believe in one or few owning everything? Why would it be wrong to work things toward the middle via socialism, when what's bad for society is working both ends against the middle?

It seems your touching on a type of dialectics which is a ancient philosophy which manifests within politics. I do believe the ruling establishments use Hegelian dialectics to bring about purposes through manipulating opposing factions to bring about a desired goal. I do not believe these political philosophies exist for any other purpose other than to try to provide excuses for evil and illusions of choice. Good does not need evil to exist in order to be able to function.

 

[childeye 2]

It seems your touching on a type of dialectics which is a ancient philosophy which manifests within politics. I do believe the ruling establishments use Hegelian dialectics to bring about purposes through manipulating opposing factions to bring about a desired goal. I do not believe these political philosophies exist for any other purpose other than to try to provide excuses for evil . Good does not need evil to exist

Interesting reply. If I were discussing philosophy with you I would say that the Truth is good, and the lie is bad. Surely Truth preceded the lie and doesn't need a lie to exist. But a lie does need the Truth to exist. Hence they are not equals as only one usurps from the other. Nonetheless, the value of the good is unrealized without the bad, and since they both precede us in existence we are manipulated by either one or the other accordingly.

Actually, I study psycho-linguistics, semantics, sophistry, propaganda. To me, these political ideologies are simply a left/right dichotomy which exists to denote an abstract center, or in other words the best way forward in equity according to love others as yourself. That is what defines the moral/immoral equation. It can't be helped that there exists dichotomies upon which we reason pro and con, right from wrong.

 

[Refirened]

Interesting reply. If I were discussing philosophy with you I would say that the Truth is good, and the lie is bad. Surely Truth preceded the lie and doesn't need a lie to exist. But a lie does need the Truth to exist. hence they are not equals as one usurps the other. Nonetheless, the value of the good is unrealized without the bad, and since they both precede us in existence we are manipulated by either one or the other accordingly.

Actually, I study psycho-linguistics, semantics, sophistry, propaganda. To me, these political ideologies are simply a left/right dichotomy which exists to denote an abstract center, or in other words the best way forward in equity according to love others as yourself. That is what defines the moral/immoral equation. It can't be helped that there exists dichotomies upon which we reason pro and con, right from wrong.

Politically I believe behind the

Interesting reply. If I were discussing philosophy with you I would say that the Truth is good, and the lie is bad. Surely Truth preceded the lie and doesn't need a lie to exist. But a lie does need the Truth to exist. hence they are not equals as one usurps the other. Nonetheless, the value of the good is unrealized without the bad, and since they both precede us in existence we are manipulated by either one or the other accordingly.

Actually, I study psycho-linguistics, semantics, sophistry, propaganda. To me, these political ideologies are simply a left/right dichotomy which exists to denote an abstract center, or in other words the best way forward in equity according to love others as yourself. That is what defines the moral/immoral equation. It can't be helped that there exists dichotomies upon which we reason pro and con, right from wrong.

Much of what we are talking about goes much deeper than surface public politics. it depends on ones knowledge of the system.

 

[childeye 2]

Politically I believe behind the


Much of what we are talking about goes much deeper than surface public politics. it depends on ones knowledge of the system.

Personally, I believe we're fundamentally discussing the spiritual discernment between entities of Light and dark. Subsequently, only the darkness uses deception obscuring the best path forward by working both ends against the middle in a left/right dichotomy.

Knowing the system, as you put it, is necessary for discussing good policy, but not so in the political rhetoric that resorts to false equivalency or ad hominem attacks in defense of a position. In semantics, all falsehood ultimately ends in a contradiction of reasoning even because propaganda works both ends against the middle.

 

[Refirened]

Personally, I believe we're fundamentally discussing the spiritual discernment between entities of Light and dark. Subsequently, only the darkness uses deception and works both ends against the middle in a left/right dichotomy, obscuring the best path forward. Knowing the system as you put it is necessary for discussing good policy, but not in the political rhetoric that resorts to false equivalency or ad hominem attacks in defense of a position.

Politically I believe the middle would be a correct balance between liberty and law within this worldly system. I believe that in this world God has ordained political powers to exist but they through sin fail to rule righteously due to satanic influence.

What do you understand for example of the reality of masonic influence within the political spectrum ?

 

[Jamesone5]

Sorry. I posted immediately after you did, thinking I was the first response. I was addressing the op.

In regards to your response however, it sounds like you would agree that corporations are like factional socialism in a quasi-capitalistic framework. I'm not sure what your question is meant to imply since it sounds rhetorical.

Fewer and ever fewer are trying to control us, by your stated dichotomy.

 

[childeye 2]

Politically I believe the middle would be a correct balance between liberty and law within this worldly system.

Respectfully, that's not a true dichotomy so it can't be safely reasoned upon as a sound premise. Law and liberty are not mutually exclusive. For example, why should liberty be at odds with law? Good law would only restrict the bad things that would impede one's liberty in any righteous connotation of the term liberty. The same cannot be said about bad law. And what about liberty? Liberty from what? The law? If the law is good and points out what is criminal, the only positive connotation of liberty to be free from the good law would exist in the criminal mind, which is an unrighteous connotation of liberty. The sentiment you are probably trying to convey is that we need good laws and policy that serve to protect a righteous liberty for everyone.

I believe that in this world God has ordained political powers to exist but they through sin fail to rule righteously due to satanic influence.

There is some truth to that. However, cynicism is a circular reasoning that is self fulfilling when entertained. Because of this, cynicism is part of the sin that contributes to a wicked and worldly system. Cynicism works both ends against the middle in a left/right dichotomy in distrust of the other side. Politics are inevitable and there's a difference between a healthy skepticism and cynicism.

The semantics show that politics are inevitable because we share a house, a neighborhood, a country, a planet. However there is a distinction that can be drawn between those who seek power wherein for the sake of their own vanity they lust to rule over others, as opposed to those who are forced to vie for power just so that those who lust to rule over others, don't rule. Good and trustworthy public servants know that serving the people is to be carrying a great weight of responsibility. They only perform the duty because out of good conscience somebody must.

What do you understand for example of the reality of masonic influence within the political spectrum .

If I were to read some of their doctrines I could probably tell you whether or not they project from a servant or boss perspective of power (Christlike or Satanic image of God/god). Other than that, I don't know the extent of influence they possess.

 

[childeye 2]

Fewer and ever fewer are trying to control us, by your stated dichotomy.

That makes no sense to me. How are fewer and ever fewer trying to control us simply because democracy and autocracy are a dichotomy?

Similar and opposite words
autocracy
Opposite
noun

a system of government by one person with absolute power.
Opposite
democracy

 

[Jamesone5]

That makes no sense to me. How are fewer and ever fewer trying to control us simply because democracy and autocracy are a dichotomy?

Similar and opposite words
autocracy
Opposite
noun

a system of government by one person with absolute power.
Opposite
democracy

And what exactly have you proved---- in reality?

That you say potatoe and I say potato?

 

[childeye 2]

And what exactly have you proved---- in reality?

That you say potatoe and I say potato?

Reusing the idiom, I'm showing how it is possible to manipulate people into despising or distrusting others over how they say or spell potato/potatoe.

As pertains to Democracy/autocracy and Socialism/capitalism, I pointed out that the objective view can see the valid argument from both sides while the subjective view can only see the argument as valid from their side.
I pointed out that objectively speaking, the perspective of each subjective view is revealed through the positive and negative denotations and connotations of binary terminology which reverse in a left/right dichotomy.

I showed that the occasion of semantics can be used to conceal a matter as well as reveal a matter, and the way one can tell the difference is because those who bring clarity to an issue are working both ends toward the center, while those who obscure the issue are working both ends against the middle.​

I showed that those who use a left/right dichotomy to speak of one side as the good side and the other side as the bad are either misinformed or spreading disinformation.
Finally, I'm stating that the Spirit of God is not the author of confusion, or deception, or wickedness.