Following on from the previous post I thought I'd select a few passages from Philip Jones' 'Nexus of Evil' that seem to shed some light on the close relationship between Capitalism and Communism. Let's begin with a quote from Henry Makow that Jones uses:
“The Illuminati’s `revolutionary goal` is the New World Order, or authoritarian socialism run by monopoly capital. It is big government in the service of big business. The Left in the service of the Right”.
The text in blue are a few observations of my own.
"Communitarians want to create a post-modern, post-democratic feudal society run by a small number of rich and powerful people with everyone else working as peasants. In order to achieve their objectives they must destroy the middle class and the nation state. Can anyone deny that their goals are firmly on course."
Certainly not, but I think it's important to note that the objective he describes is only known to a relatively small group of elites. Many of those further down the pyramidical power structure genuinely believe that they are either working for a Communist (Socialist/Marxist) or Capitalist (free trade) world. Even those closer to the top, such as many MP's, who have fallen for the 'Third way' rhetoric of Tony Blair will not have been sold the idea of a rich elite treating the rest of us as serfs, even if that will be the harsh reality. It's important for both the 'left' wing Marxists and the 'right' wing global free traders to understand they are being manipulated and lied to.
"Once the spotlight of investigation is shone directly upon the political machinations of the `One Worlders,` what emerges is a Luciferian Communitarian Agenda, which on the temporal level at least can be seen to be driven solely by corporate interests. Monetary profit is to be the `bottom line` on everything from public services to defence to the very useful environmental `Trojan Horse.`"
All very true. What Jones is referring to is the conclusion he reached in his three part essay 'Who Rules the World'. If you haven't read it you should. It certainly provides some intriguing evidence to back up his claim.
The key word here is Capitalism. This oft used word actually has two very divergent meanings. Most people make the mistake of supposing that the word capitalism means one thing; in fact, the word as commonly used has two sets of meaning, as different as oil and water. If we are to understand why governments representing capitalist states adopt the most inexplicably ambivalent attitudes towards communism, we must first learn to separate in our minds the two sets of meaning which that one word capitalism has been called on to represent.
1) Capitalism, meaning private ownership of property and resources and competitive free enterprise in the supply of goods and services.
2) Super-Capitalism, meaning a highly concentrated finance capitalism which is not only apart from capitalism, but it’s antithesis and which sooner rather than later acquires the characteristic of being actively `anti-capitalist`. It is not possible to continue to concentrate ownership and control of property and resources without simultaneously reducing the number who own and control said property and resources. Similarly, there can be no concentration of Corporate Ownership and control, without a corresponding inhibition and suppression of free enterprise. What we have seen in the West is a progressive degeneration of capitalism into a form of super-capitalism, or anti-capitalism, which the less it resembles the original capitalism the more it resembles socialism, or communism. In other words, the weak and struggling capitalism that survives, serves merely as a camouflage for an all- powerful anti-capitalism which dominates both economics and politics.
As Henry Makow points out, another word for this anti-capitalism is monopoly capitalism. As more and more mergers take place and corporations get larger and larger genuine choice, the essence of free market capitalism disappears. Even the choices we are supposed to have are largely illusory. As we come to understand how the 'game' works can their be any doubt that in all markets there is collusion between the corporations that dominate them; many have the same owners.
Modern super-capitalist regimes like that of the United States, and communist regimes like that of the former Soviet Union, have their differences and their oppositions of interest but these are unimportant when compared with what they have in common. Both are irreconcilably antagonistic towards nationalism. Therefore, both are essentially revolutionary, having set themselves in fierce antagonism towards those political forms which are essentially evolutionary. Nationalism, a much maligned and misrepresented political credo is inseparably connected to a people’s culture and traditions. This causes it to become the mortal enemy of the `Supra-nationalists` whose goal is the Super-state. Since Nationalism is so inseparably joined to a people's cultural heritage, it follows that all attacks on nationalism must include cultural sabotage and subversion - which is what we have seen happening on both sides of the Iron and Bamboo Curtains, promoted with equal zeal by super-capitalists and communists.
The reason why Western super-capitalism lives in constant dread of nationalism can be easily explained: The fundamental issue in any state is whether or not there shall be an authority superior to economics. Which shall rule - politics or economics? And there can be no doubt that nationalism, in spite of all the ailments to which it is heir, energised by the instincts and will of the population, means that politics is the master and that economics, no matter how important it may be, has been relegated to its proper and natural subordinate status.
Since there is no way in which communism can be effectively resisted and defeated except by nationalism, it follows that super-capitalism is totally committed to co-existence with communism, and that super-capitalism can have no other long range aim except that of ultimate convergence with communism in the shape of Tony Blair's `Third Way` or Communitarianism. Likewise - and this is most important - there is only one political weapon that super-capitalism can use against nationalism, and that is a communist or rather communitarian ideology that marshals the forces of the underworld and of rootless intellectualism, holding them ready to be aimed like a siege cannon against any nationalist target.
Commenting on the above section would be an article all on its own so I'll resist the temptation for now. The one point I would add though is that the synthesis of 'authoritarian socialism' and 'monopoly capital' or the `Third Way` is essentially what is coming into being in China. That reminds me of a quote by multi-billionaire banker David Rockefeller. In article for the New York Times dated August 10th, 1973 he said:
"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history"
The 'price' he was referring to was somewhere between 40 and 70 million dead Chinese. Such is the mindset of those behind the New World Order.