Brilliant NHS

[ronmcd]

What's amazing is that, people in the US are so thoroughly indoctrinated by Fox News and the like, that even people who won't use the private insurance system that's in place, still think it's better than the NHS.

This is in spite of the fact that survey after survey puts the US healthcare standards last when compared to countries of similar development. So they pay double, they get the lowest quality, they don't even USE it, but they still believe it's better.
That is just about as dumb as it gets. It just goes to show the gullibility levels in the US. It's the constant drip-drip of negative news about healthcare abroad, that keeps the US consumer tame, to be fleeced by their own robbing institutions.

Not that gullibility is confined to the US.
In surveys done in Britain, people constantly express satisfaction with their OWN treatment. The levels are up around the nineties percent.
But when asked whether they agreed with the question "My local NHS is providing me with a good service” only 67% of those surveyed agreed with it, and only 51% agreed with the statement “The NHS is providing a good service.

The fact is, people who have used the service recently are the most likely to rate it highly. ( way up in around ninety percent ) whereas people who HAVEN'T used it for a long time rate it the lowest.
This is obviously because they get their information from the media, which are mostly right-wing, and the BBC, who like to find a health story when they have no news. They constantly are fed a false story, and they buy it.
Then, when they actually use the service, their satisfaction levels shoot up into the nineties.

People are so fucking gullible. Why don't they question what they hear? I question absolutely everything, as a force of habit, having been lied to about almost everything in my time.

The people who assume the NHS is failing tend to be the ones who read the Daily Fail and other right wing rags. And Tory politicians who ideologically want to undermine and eventually replace the NHS with a US system. *shudder*

Like Jeremy Cunt, Andrew Landsley etc.

62 Tories with links to private health companies
4 Lib dems
10 Labour (these fuckers are worse than Tories - we expect it from Tories - I'm looking at you, Darling)
http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co ... ks-to.html

[Audley Strange]

Wiki disagrees.

So?

So there exists a larger more consensual perception of HMO's in this causality's historical narrative than the one you describe. Thus I assume you cannot prove that wrong. Since I worked in the Health Service (yes I too was a Marxistdronebot of doom ) I learned a small bit about Health Insurance, since I also have A Chartered Insurance Certification, I learned a larger bit about Health Insurance. Since I worked in Corporate Insurance and specifically claims, I can vouch that their version of HMO's in the narrative along with the obvious statements and behaviours of those companies matches mine and yours does not. This is private businesses using influence in government to make insurance mandatory in order to consolidate profit, it is fraud with force. They do it here. Your narrative claims it was an attempt at Marxism, well if by Marxism you mean the redistribution of wealth from the many to the few, you are correct. It may have been sold to Marxist Dupes as a good idea, but it was all about consolidating profit, not some beneficial socialist idea. THAT would have been a national health service.

Pointing to Nixon is not exactly a good way to pin anything on Republicanism. You do remember that he was a crook and was driven from office, right? Besides, I'm no great fan of Republicans either, as many of them are themselves Progressives. George Bush the Younger was one of the most egregious examples of a RINO Progressive. He presided over the largest expansion of the federal government and it's power in the history of the United States...until Obama came along and easily bested him.

Yes I am aware of Nixon's history. Are you claiming that the actions that led to his dismissal are relevant to his policymaking? I will grant you that Bush Jnr did preside over a invasive security state that would have made the Communist Regime proud, but are you claiming that the Republican party and Presidents Ford, Reagan Bush and Bush were actually Frankfurt school Marxists? Does this include Joe McCarthy, does this include the Dominionists? Was Reagan's hard on for Milton Freidman a just a ruse?

The consent of the governed is given by voting.

Most times yes. But the consent of the governed is also explicitly stated in the Constitution itself, which is a charter of restrictions on what government is permitted to do. And the 13th Amendment says neither the government nor anybody else can force anyone other than a prisoner duly convicted of a crime into involuntary servitude. And if being forced to work and turn over my money for redistribution to other people isn't involuntary servitude I don't know what is. It's functionally no different from sending me to Siberia to build the Road of Bones.

Yes you've said as much before and I still think you are mistaken since you are not forced to work, thus your servility is that of your own choosing. By choosing to work you choose to take part in the system with its laws and taxations (some of which is being taken directly from you and given to plutocrats). you can always choose not to play the game. There is no coercion or compulsion.

So I don't buy the evil Marxists did this.

But they did, in cahoots with the Progressives. Go read up on the Frankfurt School. What the Marxists in the US realized is that they could never accomplish it by revolution in the US, instead they would have to take the long view and infiltrate the government, but mostly the educational system, in order to change the way children were taught to think. And it's been going on for a hundred years and it's working pretty well precisely because people are being slowly boiled alive rather than dumped in the fire. The good news is that Obama appears to have badly overstepped and tipped the Marxist Progressive hand too soon and people are waking up to what he and his ilk have been trying to do, and they are rejecting it. Time will tell though.

I have heard this exact argument many times before, from Alex Jones, only he blames whomever is his chosen boogeyman of the week, Frankfurt School, Trilateral commission, Unicef, Alien space lizard illuminati working with Chicago School ninjas. These long game fringe narratives are entertaining and of course there is of course a kernel of truth to them, which is what makes them so potent but the ideation between the links of these narratives are not borne out by perception only by supporting narratives. Critical pedagogy is a dangerous idea I will grant you. However that only works in a functioning public school system and by all accounts that's failing in the U.S. too.

I agree it is a perversion of the Free Market Economy, but then I'd put it to you that it comes from the Right, especially plutocrats who are happy that the government is forcing businesses (and now individuals) into purchasing health insurance, because it was profitable for THEM.

Oh I don't disagree at all that the insurance industry was not in collusion with and complicit in all this. They made a devil's bargain with the Progressives, just like Krupp Steel and other large industries in Weimar Germany made with Hitler, who told them "I'm a socialist, but as long as you toe the party line and support my regime, you will be allowed the privilege of profiting from your labor. If you don't cooperate however, I'm going to stand you all up against a wall, shoot you, and nationalize everything."

I think you are hitting close to a revelation about what type of "Marxists" these "Marxists" you keep talking about in U.S. politics actually are and no it's not Nazis.

The insurance industry leaped at the chance to obtain government monopoly protection for their new "HMO" scam.

That doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, nor does collusion between big business and government axiomatically mean the programs and purposes emanate from the right. Clearly they don't, they emanate from a witch's brew of Marxism, socialism and Progressivism.

Well no it doesn't axiomatically mean that, but more often than not it does. The "bail-out" was Marxism in action was it? Actually scratch that, I'd imagine you'd think that the case, since it couldn't possibly be about keeping plutocratic allies afloat but rather keeping an unnecessary workforce employed? Is that how you would frame it?

Anyway, the original point was that your narrative on HMO's is at odds with both the historical consensus, the words of those who were involved and my own experience. Prove me wrong.

[Seth]

Wiki disagrees.

So?

So there exists a larger more consensual perception of HMO's in this causality's historical narrative than the one you describe. Thus I assume you cannot prove that wrong. Since I worked in the Health Service (yes I too was a Marxistdronebot of doom ) I learned a small bit about Health Insurance, since I also have A Chartered Insurance Certification, I learned a larger bit about Health Insurance. Since I worked in Corporate Insurance and specifically claims, I can vouch that their version of HMO's in the narrative along with the obvious statements and behaviours of those companies matches mine and yours does not. This is private businesses using influence in government to make insurance mandatory in order to consolidate profit, it is fraud with force. They do it here.

I actually fully agree with you here. As I said, the industry was happy to both be complicit in setting up the system and getting protected by government for their own profit. That's why I deny them that profit by not using them. But the MOTIVATION behind it was based in Marxist dogma. It was the notion that everybody ought to be able to get the same health care perks that executives were getting, out of a sense of "fairness" that drove the entire program, and it was clearly one of a number of steps in the long, slow, corrosive Marxist plan to carve away the foundations of individual liberty this nation was founded upon. It so happens that both the Progressive agenda and the Marxist agenda aligned in this respect (as it has in many others for reasons I'll explain) so they became odd bedfellows with the same short-term objective but different long-term objectives...sort of.

Progressivism as founded by T. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and their ilk is the notion that the public doesn't really know what's best for them, and that they need to be lead by a strong leader and managed by a "scientific" bureaucracy made up of putatively non-partisan bureaucrats and minions who use science, reason and logic to regulate rather than either the consent of the governed or their desires as expressed through democratic decision making. Progressives see the proletariat as simply incapable of ruling themselves, and they tried to rename monarchy, oligarchy and other forms of tyrannical rule as "Progressivism" by substituting "science" and "reason" for deistic or hereditary privilege.

Progressivism as announced by it's prime mover, Woodrow Wilson, looks much like British monarchy and the parliamentary process, of which Wilson was greatly enamored. His vision was that the President, who is elected by the people, is both closet to understanding the will of the people and best qualified (presumably merely because he was popular enough to be elected) to RULE the country with the help of unelected ministers and bureaucrats who would have all but unlimited power to make law and regulate as they saw fit (under the general guidance of the President) because they are presumptively smarter and more able to make proper management decisions than the democratic majority...or anybody else. Congress was to take the form of a debating society in which elected representatives argued general policy, and perhaps voted on what to ADVISE the President to do, but which would actually have little or no power to command the President to do or not do anything.

It would be up to the President, as advised by his "scientific experts" (ministers and minions) to actually make the laws and regulations to supposedly reflect the will of the people, first as understood by the President, and tertiarily as suggested by Congress.

In other words, Progressivism is fundamentally dictatorial tyranny with a load of makeup pasted on it to make it look like it's "scientific" (kind of like Hitler's "scientific" determinations of the animalism of Jews) and therefore superior to outright dictatorial despotism.

In point of fact, Adolph Hitler was a great admirer of Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive platform and he actually modeled much of his regime on the fundamental ideals of Progressivism.

In short, Progressivism is a political philosophy that says that the Executive Branch should be the supreme authority of the State, that the Judicial Branch should be limited to supporting and facilitating whatever the Executive Branch decides is best for the nation, and that the Legislative Branch become nothing more than a debating society which gives recommendations to the Executive that are in no way binding on the President, who runs everything.

Where Marxism comes into this is first that Marxism inherently believes that until (in philosophical Marxism) the culture, thinking and practices of the proletariat have been molded into the utopian "stateless" and "classless" society of theoretical Communism, it is necessary, as an interim part of the evolution of the Communist state that the proletariat be closely supervised and managed while they are being generationally indoctrinated and educated into the proper Communist behavior. This is where Socialism comes in. Socialism is just one stage in the theoretical process, but because of human nature socialism always requires (again theoretically) a period of adjustment wherein the elite class of Marxist True Believers exercise strict control over the people and the economy in order to properly train the proletariat to be successful Communists. This is called State Socialism, and it is characterized by political, economic and social control being centralized in an elite group "chosen" for their skill and ability to manage the necessary social indoctrination and central planning that will, theoretically, move the culture in the desired direction...by force if necessary.

That's what Stalin's gulags were all about. They were set up to remove malcontents and "counterrevolutionaries" from the general population and "reeducate" them into proper Communist thinking and behavior. In theory. In reality they were simply places to dump and eventually liquidate counterrevolutionaries. Mao was somewhat less obtuse and simply shot counterrevolutionaries in the back of the head, like Pol Pot did.

State Socialism however is where attempts at theoretical Communism ALWAYS inevitably come to a grinding halt. Because once the Marxist elite attain power and control, they, like any other despots, are loathe to give it up and will always find excuses to defy the "democratic" will of the people and cling to power, largely by eliminating their enemies. Thus the gulags, thus the Ukrainian Holomodor of 1932-33, thus the Killing Fields of the Khymer Rouge, etc..

I won't go into how and why ALL socialist societies are State Socialism either in practice or in waiting just now.

The point is that particularly in the US, where the Marxists (lead by the Frankfurt School) learned that revolution was not possible and that long-term (and I mean centuries) reeducation of the children was the only way to attain the Marxist goal of...whatever they think the goal is. They're a bit squishy on the end-state goals. But the problem is that where their plan is headed is inevitably to State Socialism, central planning, and Marxist tyranny, which again is where ALL forms of socialism eventually end up...sooner or later.

The reason that I call Obama a "Marxist Progressive" is because he is adhering to BOTH political agendas at the same time because the Progressive agenda dovetails very nicely with the Marxist State Socialism agenda right up to the point where the President has to step down and cede power to a new elected President, who then has the individual power to reverse everything that the prior President has done...if the new President deems that the winds of public opinion have changed.

So Marxists are using Progressives as useful idiots and political puppets and are manipulating Progressivism in order to achieve the thing that both Progressivism and Marxism require to move to the final stage: total control by the Executive Branch. It's perfectly obvious that this is exactly what Obama is doing to anyone with a modicum of understanding of either Progressivism or Marxism, with his stated intent to simply bypass Congress and do what he wants administratively through his power over regulatory agencies, to whom Congress, in a long-term slide into Progressivism, have ceded their constitutionally-mandated duty, power and authority to make law.

What Obama and his covert Marxist supporters and minions are working towards is achieving the Progressive Administrative State where all the power of control lies with the President. At that point it's a simple matter to strike the Progressive banner and the Stars and Stripes and raise the Hammer and Sickle because the basic goal and requirement of State Socialism has been achieved under the guise of Progressivism: total centralized control vested in the Executive branch.

And THAT is why Marxists and Progressives are so very dangerous to our liberty and freedom.

Your narrative claims it was an attempt at Marxism, well if by Marxism you mean the redistribution of wealth from the many to the few, you are correct. It may have been sold to Marxist Dupes as a good idea, but it was all about consolidating profit, not some beneficial socialist idea. THAT would have been a national health service.

Wrong. It's all about a PROCESS of centralizing power and control. Like Weimar Germany, the objective is to dangle profits in front of private business to get them to go along with government assumption of power and control. But once that power and control is consolidated in the Executive, it's easy just to "nationalize" the private industry and continue with the real objective: State Socialism.

Hitler did this exact thing.

Obama is doing it right now.

Anyone who knows anything about economics can see that, as Harry Reid inadvertently let slip, Obamacare is just a stepping stone to "single payer" health care...which is socialized medicine.

What will happen is that private industry will be burdened with regulations mandating all sorts of treatments that they must provide by law. This will force the industry to either raise premiums or go out of business, either of which is fine with the Marxist in Chief. If they go bankrupt, good, there's fewer companies to manage. And when they raise premiums out of the reach of "Joe Average Laborer" why then the Marxists will agitate for nationalizing health care because rapacious insurance companies are predating on the "middle class" by making premiums so high. And that will be that. Objective achieved.

It's not really all that complex a conspiracy. And the insurance industry is going along with it because at the moment they have no choice. It's either make a profit until socialized medicine comes along or be put out of business right now. That's the carrot and stick that Obamacare wields.

But the end game is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to actually examine the facts.

Pointing to Nixon is not exactly a good way to pin anything on Republicanism. You do remember that he was a crook and was driven from office, right? Besides, I'm no great fan of Republicans either, as many of them are themselves Progressives. George Bush the Younger was one of the most egregious examples of a RINO Progressive. He presided over the largest expansion of the federal government and it's power in the history of the United States...until Obama came along and easily bested him.

Yes I am aware of Nixon's history. Are you claiming that the actions that led to his dismissal are relevant to his policymaking? I will grant you that Bush Jnr did preside over a invasive security state that would have made the Communist Regime proud, but are you claiming that the Republican party and Presidents Ford, Reagan Bush and Bush were actually Frankfurt school Marxists? Does this include Joe McCarthy, does this include the Dominionists? Was Reagan's hard on for Milton Freidman a just a ruse?

Certainly not Reagan, but Nixon, Ford and Bush the Younger were staunch big-government Progressives at heart, if not in name. The thing about Progressives is that they come in all flavors and sizes, and the smart ones only push the Progressive agenda when and where they can get away with it by duping the public into thinking its for their own good. Like the EPA. Nothing the EPA does could not be done by the states working together if they wanted to. Centralizing power over the "environment" in Washington was a Progressive move towards "scientific executive management" of the nation.

The consent of the governed is given by voting.

Most times yes. But the consent of the governed is also explicitly stated in the Constitution itself, which is a charter of restrictions on what government is permitted to do. And the 13th Amendment says neither the government nor anybody else can force anyone other than a prisoner duly convicted of a crime into involuntary servitude. And if being forced to work and turn over my money for redistribution to other people isn't involuntary servitude I don't know what is. It's functionally no different from sending me to Siberia to build the Road of Bones.

Yes you've said as much before and I still think you are mistaken since you are not forced to work, thus your servility is that of your own choosing. By choosing to work you choose to take part in the system with its laws and taxations (some of which is being taken directly from you and given to plutocrats). you can always choose not to play the game. There is no coercion or compulsion.

Wrong. I'm not forced to work, but I am forced to turn over a portion of what I earn to redistributive taxation. I have a RIGHT to work, and a RIGHT to profit from that work. The government does not give me permission to work as a perquisite of citizenship that they could base a claim upon my labor upon. My labor belongs to me, completely. I am obliged to pay for those government services and benefits I enjoy or use, that's the reason that "consumptive" taxes are acceptable even in Libertarianism (to some extent).

But redistributionary taxation is nothing other than the collective claiming dominion over the labor and property of the individual by saying "if you work, you owe X percent to the collective." But there is no basis in our Constitution for such an assumption, and indeed the document was written to DENY that assumption on the part of King George, who levied irrational and confiscatory taxes on the Colonies all the time. It doesn't really matter what the stated purpose of a tax is, if it's PRACTICAL EFFECT is to seize the property (and therefore the labor) of one individual and transfer it more or less directly to another individual or individuals for their benefit when doing so does not pay for some benefit that the payer has enjoyed from government, like a road or a bridge or fire protection, then that "taking" is redistributive and, in my view, entirely unconstitutional for previously mentioned reasons of involuntary servitude.

You have quibbled in saying that no one is forced to work, but that's not really true. People who DO work, and nearly everyone MUST work in order to survive, have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor...even Marx said that...and before anyone can take those fruits from them they have to have a legitimate, moral and ethical reason to do so, otherwise it's just theft...the initiation of force and fraud simply because the government is the biggest and best-armed bully in the 'hood.

So I don't buy the evil Marxists did this.

But they did, in cahoots with the Progressives. Go read up on the Frankfurt School. What the Marxists in the US realized is that they could never accomplish it by revolution in the US, instead they would have to take the long view and infiltrate the government, but mostly the educational system, in order to change the way children were taught to think. And it's been going on for a hundred years and it's working pretty well precisely because people are being slowly boiled alive rather than dumped in the fire. The good news is that Obama appears to have badly overstepped and tipped the Marxist Progressive hand too soon and people are waking up to what he and his ilk have been trying to do, and they are rejecting it. Time will tell though.

I have heard this exact argument many times before, from Alex Jones, only he blames whomever is his chosen boogeyman of the week, Frankfurt School, Trilateral commission, Unicef, Alien space lizard illuminati working with Chicago School ninjas. These long game fringe narratives are entertaining and of course there is of course a kernel of truth to them, which is what makes them so potent but the ideation between the links of these narratives are not borne out by perception only by supporting narratives. Critical pedagogy is a dangerous idea I will grant you. However that only works in a functioning public school system and by all accounts that's failing in the U.S. too.

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy.

I agree it is a perversion of the Free Market Economy, but then I'd put it to you that it comes from the Right, especially plutocrats who are happy that the government is forcing businesses (and now individuals) into purchasing health insurance, because it was profitable for THEM.

Oh I don't disagree at all that the insurance industry was not in collusion with and complicit in all this. They made a devil's bargain with the Progressives, just like Krupp Steel and other large industries in Weimar Germany made with Hitler, who told them "I'm a socialist, but as long as you toe the party line and support my regime, you will be allowed the privilege of profiting from your labor. If you don't cooperate however, I'm going to stand you all up against a wall, shoot you, and nationalize everything."

I think you are hitting close to a revelation about what type of "Marxists" these "Marxists" you keep talking about in U.S. politics actually are and no it's not Nazis.

I didn't say they were, but you do know what "NAZI" stands for, right?

The insurance industry leaped at the chance to obtain government monopoly protection for their new "HMO" scam.

That doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, nor does collusion between big business and government axiomatically mean the programs and purposes emanate from the right. Clearly they don't, they emanate from a witch's brew of Marxism, socialism and Progressivism.

Well no it doesn't axiomatically mean that, but more often than not it does.

Fallacious appeal to common practice.

The "bail-out" was Marxism in action was it?

Absolutely. Marxist Progressivism to be exact.

Actually scratch that, I'd imagine you'd think that the case, since it couldn't possibly be about keeping plutocratic allies afloat but rather keeping an unnecessary workforce employed? Is that how you would frame it?

Do you think the "bailout" of General Motors was about keeping plutocratic allies afloat or about keeping an unnecessary workforce employed? Here's a clue: National Auto Worker's Union.

You don't seem to understand that the "Bailout" is about BOTH Marxism and Progressivism, at the same time. Each individual bailout had a different short term purpose, but the ultimate long-term purpose assists both Marxism and Progressivism, but in slightly different ways. It's pretty complex how it's all been planned out, but the Progressives have had a hundred years to do it, and the Marxists have been duping the Progressives that whole time.

Anyway, the original point was that your narrative on HMO's is at odds with both the historical consensus, the words of those who were involved and my own experience. Prove me wrong.

Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. It's hard to see the complex nature of the conspiracy from the inside. You have to step outside of your own preconceptions and biases to see the big picture and discern the truth.

[Azathoth]

Wait, what? Did you just call Hitler a Marxist??

[Audley Strange]

@ Seth

Ooof! That's a biggie. I'll respond later, but I'll try to do so without us pulling the Inet into a black hole of text.

[Tero]

(Mistermack)

That is just about as dumb as it gets. It just goes to show the gullibility levels in the US. It's the constant drip-drip of negative news about healthcare abroad, that keeps the US consumer tame, to be fleeced by their own robbing institutions.

Not that gullibility is confined to the US.
In surveys done in Britain, people constantly express satisfaction with their OWN treatment. The levels are up around the nineties percent.
But when asked whether they agreed with the question "My local NHS is providing me with a good service” only 67% of those surveyed agreed with it, and only 51% agreed with the statement “The NHS is providing a good service.

The fact is, people who have used the service recently are the most likely to rate it highly. ( way up in around ninety percent ) whereas people who HAVEN'T used it for a long time rate it the lowest.
This is obviously because they get their information from the media, which are mostly right-wing, and the BBC, who like to find a health story when they have no news. They constantly are fed a false story, and they buy it.
Then, when they actually use the service, their satisfaction levels shoot up into the nineties.

People are so fucking gullible. Why don't they question what they hear? I question absolutely everything, as a force of habit, having been lied to about almost everything in my time.

It took me a long time to realize how dumb people are. I worked a packaging job 3 months due to er..labor issues (wink wink). The temps were just not very smart at learning. Part was that they did not care, but it was actually less work if you learned to do it right. They eventually learned.

Fox TV and all the rest have convinced a bunch of Americans they do not want health insurance and Gubment healthcare is evil. Now, where's my beer and cigarettes, I gotta watch Simpsons reruns.

[Seth]

Wait, what? Did you just call Hitler a Marxist??

What part of "National Socialist Party" is unclear to you?""

You need to read "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning" by Jonah Goldberg.

[Azathoth]

Wait, what? Did you just call Hitler a Marxist??

What part of "National Socialist Party" is unclear to you?""

You need to read "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning" by Jonah Goldberg.

and you need to read Mein Kampf. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

His unfailing instinct in such things scents the original soul (die urspruengliche Seele) in everyone, and his hostility is assured to anyone who is not spirit of his spirit. Since the Jew is not the attacked but the attacker, not only anyone who attacks passes as his enemy, but also anyone who resists him. But the means with which he seeks to break such reckless but upright souls is not honest warfare, but lies and slander.

Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.

The ignorance of the broad masses about the inner nature of the Jew, the lack of instinct and narrow-mindedness of our upper classes, make the people an easy victim for this Jewish campaign of lies.

While from innate cowardice the upper classes turn away from a man whom the Jew attacks with lies and slander, the broad masses from stupidity or simplicity believe everything. The state authorities either cloak themselves in silence or, what usually happens, in order to put an end to the Jewish press campaign, they persecute the unjustly attacked, which, in the eyes of such an official ass, passes as the preservation of state authority and the safeguarding of law and order.

Slowly fear and the Marxist weapon of Jewry descend like a nightmare on the mind and soul of decent people.

They begin to tremble before the terrible enemy and thus have become his final victim.

The Jew’s domination in the state seems so assured that now not only can he call himself a Jew again, but he ruthlessly admits his ultimate national and political designs. A section of his race openly owns itself to be a foreign people, yet even here they lie. For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.

It is a sign of their rising confidence and sense of security that at a time when one section is still playing the German, Frenchman, or Englishman, the other with open effrontery comes out as the Jewish race.

How close they see approaching victory can be seen by the hideous aspect which their relations with the members of other peoples takes on.

With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people. With every means he tries to destroy the racial foundations of the people he has set out to subjugate. Just as he himself systematically ruins women and girls, he does not shrink back from pulling down the blood barriers for others, even on a large scale. It was and it is Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from its cultural and political height, and himself rising to be its master.

For a racially pure people which is conscious of its blood can never be enslaved by the Jew. In this world he will forever be master over bastards and bastards alone.

And so he tries systematically to lower the racial level by a continuous poisoning of individuals.

And in politics he begins to replace the idea of democracy by the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In the organized mass of Marxism he has found the weapon which lets him dispense with democracy and in its stead allows him to subjugate and govern the peoples with a dictatorial and brutal fist.

He works systematically for revolutionization in a twofold sense: economic and political.

Around peoples who offer too violent a resistance to attack from within he weaves a net of enemies, thanks to his international influence, incites them to war, and finally, if necessary, plants a flag of revolution on the very battlefields.

In economics he undermines the states until the social enterprises which have become unprofitable are taken from the state and subjected to his financial control.

In the political field he refuses the state the means for its self-preservation, destroys the foundations of all national self-maintenance and defense, destroys faith in the leadership, scoffs at its history and past, and drags everything that is truly great into the gutter.

Culturally, he contaminates art, literature, the theater, makes a mockery of natural feeling, overthrows all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drags men down into the sphere of his own base nature.

Religion is ridiculed, ethics and morality represented as outmoded, until the last props of a nation in its struggle for existence in this world have fallen.

Now begins the great last revolution. In gaining political power the Jew casts off the few cloaks that he still wears. The democratic people’s Jew becomes the blood-Jew and tyrant over peoples. In a few years he tries to exterminate the national intelligentsia and by robbing the peoples of their natural intellectual leadership makes them ripe for the slave’s lot of permanent subjugation.

The most frightful example of this kind is offered by Russia, where he killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination over a great people.

The end is not only the end of the freedom of the peoples oppressed by the Jew, but also the end of this parasite upon the nations. After the death of his victim, the vampire sooner or later dies too.

[SteveB]

Canadian Medical Whatsitcalled is not so bad either. In BC you have to pay provincial taxes for health services unlike in Alberta where there's none.

I hate paying for shit.

[Audley Strange]

I actually fully agree with you here...

...Hitler did this exact thing.

Obama is doing it right now.

I don't think you can compare what Obama is doing with Adolf Hitler. It might sound good to a specific audience, but outside of that, its not effective rhetoric and to be frank weakens your narrative by making it sound absurd.

There is within it no doubt a thread of event and fact weaved through which is factual to some extent, but I fear you when you use Marxism you use it in a way that is so broad that it makes such a narrative is unrecognisable to most people, especially in Europe, because we actually had and have Marxists in our governments. You have woven a net so wide that any act which appears to benefit the majority at the expense of the minority was the idea of Karl Marx.

Anyone who knows anything about economics can see that, as Harry Reid inadvertently let slip, Obamacare is just a stepping stone to "single payer" health care...which is socialized medicine.

See this is a good example. A single quote. Like the occassional selection of some jackass who was a W.U. tosspot forty five years ago, or some racist shit from a preacher Obama kicks about with and it gets woven into the narrative. Excluded from it is the overwhelmingly obvious fact that your Government is the whore of Business Lobbies and Wall Street. It's a revolving door for those guys that those interests have been established and are practically ingrained in your Government and are happily defended by yourself. They may use Marxism to market to the dupes at voting time or to keep them from burning down the state capital but the fact that since 1945 practically every regime was involved in destablising or invading countries which had taken a Marxist position or even got a thought in their head about perhaps nationalising their own oil-fields.

The U.S. waged a brutal unceasing clandestine war against anyone they could fuck with that went a little to the left because they were so clearly paranoid about the influence of Marxism. What were they scared of? Losing their riches. The country is run for the rich and for big business concerns. Any concession to anything other than rapacious plutocracy is not evidence of a century old clandestine plot by communists. The narrative is Implausible as to be absurd.

To claim that the influence of Marxism is so potent you would have to point to more than just the ideology of a few individuals but rather the majority of those within each successive regime and the will of the people to vote for them. You would have to provide more evidence than is in the consensual historical narrative. Otherwise you are literally claiming a few individuals have secretly been manipulating American politics from behind the scenes in the name of creating a Marxist State. That is the definition of a conspiracy theory.

[

It's not really all that complex a conspiracy. And the insurance industry is going along with it because at the moment they have no choice. It's either make a profit until socialized medicine comes along or be put out of business right now. That's the carrot and stick that Obamacare wields.

But the end game is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to actually examine the facts.

And interpret them in a way that links them together with a communist plot. The problem is I fail to see why the supposed Marxist Antri-Christ that is Obama, when voted in on an almost super-majority would fail to take advantage of that opportunity during a time when they had the good will of almost an entire globe let alone nation and instead make sure than any single payer option would be “dead in the water” and was “off the table”. I suggest you exaggerate the minor influence of Marxism in your government and greatly ignore the almost omnipotent influence of trans-nationalist plutocrats.

Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. It's hard to see the complex nature of the conspiracy from the inside. You have to step outside of your own preconceptions and biases to see the big picture and discern the truth.

Well here's the thing. I love conspiracy theories. I love the narrative flair, the folky paranoia, they are like a form of modern mythology. It's the same rhythm and style they all have that I like. Shadowy group with nefarious plans that no one can see expect all these guys weaving the tales like some kind of Urban prophets. The problem is they're a thin tapestry. They rely too heavily on supposition and fact stretching. A good one should be all fact and one with which the tenuous links between them are plausible. They can be simple or complex, but you can't say it's a simple one in one paragraph and then describe it as if it's some fiendishly occluded in another. Get some consistency there. Conspiracy theories are all about the trees though aren't they. One little sapling is more significant than a thousand great big oaks. That's what you're doing, not me.

[Seth]

Wait, what? Did you just call Hitler a Marxist??

What part of "National Socialist Party" is unclear to you?""

You need to read "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning" by Jonah Goldberg.

and you need to read Mein Kampf. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

Wrong. Hitler didn't like Marxists, that doesn't mean he didn't use Marxist socialist rhetoric to persuade Germans to go along with his liberal fascism. Hitler didn't like Marxists because their stated end-game of Communism didn't leave him in charge of things. He was a despotic maniac, but he cleverly used the rhetoric of socialism to delude the proletariat into putting him in power, as Goldberg proves.

"Liberal Fascism" will explain it all in great detail if you have the guts to read it.

[Seth]

I actually fully agree with you here...

...Hitler did this exact thing.

Obama is doing it right now.

I don't think you can compare what Obama is doing with Adolf Hitler. It might sound good to a specific audience, but outside of that, its not effective rhetoric and to be frank weakens your narrative by making it sound absurd.

Typical Alinsky argument. It's not absurd if you actually know and understand the facts, which no Obama supporter does, or cares to do.

There is within it no doubt a thread of event and fact weaved through which is factual to some extent, but I fear you when you use Marxism you use it in a way that is so broad that it makes such a narrative is unrecognisable to most people, especially in Europe, because we actually had and have Marxists in our governments. You have woven a net so wide that any act which appears to benefit the majority at the expense of the minority was the idea of Karl Marx.

Well, that's pretty much what Marxism is. More specifically Marxism inherently includes the denial (or close control over) of the right to private property, which is the very basis of socialism in all its forms. Some Marxists are more radical and egregious than others, but Marxism is as Marxism does. Any time that the labor or property of the individual is presumed to be the property of the collective and subject to redistribution by the collective in the interests of the collective over the interests of the individual, it's Marxism. Whether it's Socialism, State Socialism, Democratic Socialism or any other version of the Marxist dialectic, it's all Marxist in it's basic principles. No, Marx didn't invent the concept of communal society, but he codified it and has been the driving force behind every socialist society in modern history, so I call it what it is: Marxism. Is it broad? Yes, it is, but that's because the basic, core concept of the individual being nothing more than a chattel of the collective is universal in all forms of socialism. That one concept in fact DEFINES socialism's every iteration.

I just refuse to quibble, pettifog and obfuscate and prefer to see through all the lies, distortions and denials that Alinskyites use all the time to avoid the truth.

It's not "any act which appears to benefit the majority at the expense of the minority" that I'm talking about at all, it's "forcible redistribution of labor and wealth from the individual to another individual in the collective, or the collective itself, for the purposes of redistributing such labor and wealth for the benefit of the recipient only, and which does not reflect just payment for some service or amenity offered by the collective to or enjoyed by the individual from whom the labor and wealth are extracted."

It's quite specific, the definition of Marxism as I apply it here.

No one, not you, not anyone else who supports socialism has yet to provide a rational, logical and intellectually defensible argument supporting the notion that the individual owes a debt of service or property to others merely because the others have unsatisfied needs or desires.

I sure would like somebody to try, but I've never found a Marxist who is brave enough to give it an honest go. I suspect this is because deep down all Marxists know that they are just greedy, jealous, envious thieves who want to take from the rich to give to the poor merely because they have the power to do so, not for any valid moral or ethical reason.

Anyone who knows anything about economics can see that, as Harry Reid inadvertently let slip, Obamacare is just a stepping stone to "single payer" health care...which is socialized medicine.

See this is a good example. A single quote. Like the occassional selection of some jackass who was a W.U. tosspot forty five years ago, or some racist shit from a preacher Obama kicks about with and it gets woven into the narrative. Excluded from it is the overwhelmingly obvious fact that your Government is the whore of Business Lobbies and Wall Street. It's a revolving door for those guys that those interests have been established and are practically ingrained in your Government and are happily defended by yourself. They may use Marxism to market to the dupes at voting time or to keep them from burning down the state capital but the fact that since 1945 practically every regime was involved in destablising or invading countries which had taken a Marxist position or even got a thought in their head about perhaps nationalising their own oil-fields.

The U.S. waged a brutal unceasing clandestine war against anyone they could fuck with that went a little to the left because they were so clearly paranoid about the influence of Marxism. What were they scared of? Losing their riches. The country is run for the rich and for big business concerns. Any concession to anything other than rapacious plutocracy is not evidence of a century old clandestine plot by communists. The narrative is Implausible as to be absurd.

To claim that the influence of Marxism is so potent you would have to point to more than just the ideology of a few individuals but rather the majority of those within each successive regime and the will of the people to vote for them. You would have to provide more evidence than is in the consensual historical narrative. Otherwise you are literally claiming a few individuals have secretly been manipulating American politics from behind the scenes in the name of creating a Marxist State. That is the definition of a conspiracy theory.

[

It's not really all that complex a conspiracy. And the insurance industry is going along with it because at the moment they have no choice. It's either make a profit until socialized medicine comes along or be put out of business right now. That's the carrot and stick that Obamacare wields.

But the end game is perfectly clear to anyone who cares to actually examine the facts.

And interpret them in a way that links them together with a communist plot. The problem is I fail to see why the supposed Marxist Antri-Christ that is Obama, when voted in on an almost super-majority would fail to take advantage of that opportunity during a time when they had the good will of almost an entire globe let alone nation and instead make sure than any single payer option would be “dead in the water” and was “off the table”. I suggest you exaggerate the minor influence of Marxism in your government and greatly ignore the almost omnipotent influence of trans-nationalist plutocrats.

Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. It's hard to see the complex nature of the conspiracy from the inside. You have to step outside of your own preconceptions and biases to see the big picture and discern the truth.

Well here's the thing. I love conspiracy theories. I love the narrative flair, the folky paranoia, they are like a form of modern mythology. It's the same rhythm and style they all have that I like. Shadowy group with nefarious plans that no one can see expect all these guys weaving the tales like some kind of Urban prophets. The problem is they're a thin tapestry. They rely too heavily on supposition and fact stretching. A good one should be all fact and one with which the tenuous links between them are plausible. They can be simple or complex, but you can't say it's a simple one in one paragraph and then describe it as if it's some fiendishly occluded in another. Get some consistency there. Conspiracy theories are all about the trees though aren't they. One little sapling is more significant than a thousand great big oaks. That's what you're doing, not me.[/quote]

[MrJonno]

Hitler loved Britain and the British empire which

a) didnt stop him trying to destroy it
b) make the British empire a good thing
c) make Hitler a socialist
d) make the British government fascist
e) make Chancellor Merkel a communist, fascist , capitalist or Buddist
f) also doesn't make eating meat or being a vegetarian a good thing

[JimC]

Americans do not really get proper information for foreign healthcare systems. It's always filtered through a biased newsmedia with their own agenda...Fox is sort of like North Korean news...

I have noticed this phenomenon too. All my family have had cause to use the NHS, a number of them for serious life threatening illnesses or conditions. These include my daughter, my father, my father in law and myself. All of them without exception have praised the treatment, the conditions, the manner of the doctors and nurses (nurses in particular) and of course the outcomes, where appropriate.

Of course things go wrong - it is a huge organisation dealing with millions of people - but they have not with any of us so far.

And yet the media stories one hears about emanating from the USA about our system seem to insist it is on its last legs and about to collapse.

In our equivalent, 2 years ago I was rushed into Melbourne's Eye and Ear hospital for emergency surgery to have my detached retina repaired, and my sight saved, by two brilliant young surgeons.

Cost?

Zero...

(OK, when I was discharged, I had to pay $30 for eyedrops...)

[Seth]

Americans do not really get proper information for foreign healthcare systems. It's always filtered through a biased newsmedia with their own agenda...Fox is sort of like North Korean news...

I have noticed this phenomenon too. All my family have had cause to use the NHS, a number of them for serious life threatening illnesses or conditions. These include my daughter, my father, my father in law and myself. All of them without exception have praised the treatment, the conditions, the manner of the doctors and nurses (nurses in particular) and of course the outcomes, where appropriate.

Of course things go wrong - it is a huge organisation dealing with millions of people - but they have not with any of us so far.

And yet the media stories one hears about emanating from the USA about our system seem to insist it is on its last legs and about to collapse.

In our equivalent, 2 years ago I was rushed into Melbourne's Eye and Ear hospital for emergency surgery to have my detached retina repaired, and my sight saved, by two brilliant young surgeons.

Cost?

Zero...

(OK, when I was discharged, I had to pay $30 for eyedrops...)

And here is a most excellent example of the fundamental cognitive disconnect of socialists: the universal "something for nothing" perception.

Here's a subtle clue for you dude...THE COST OF YOUR SURGERY WAS NOT ZERO!

Do try and absorb that small but important fact.