Page 25 is where Marx tell us
“The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and Nationality”
It seems obvious, no society, no country, no nations, only a citizen of the world.
Seems benign enough, right?
Not when you see what is necessary for that to happen.
As we’ve seen you need to destroy society.
Cultural norms need to go out the window, etc., enter mass unregulated immigration from anywhere and everywhere.
Over time, the hope is that everyone is the same everywhere, with the same values.
Once I’m the same as you, why should I call myself Canadian when you are American, Chilean, Ukranian, or Angolan?
It’s only logical that because we are the same and believe the same things, the same way that we should all be one.
Part of that transformation will be globalization and it has reduced conflict because you can’t conduct trade with a nation if you are at war with it.
But here is the rub.
How can a nation and those people who run the country be an advocate of what I truly believe to be a globalist playbook when it clearly states without equivocation that it wants to abolish countries and nationalities?
Isn’t that a huge conflict of interest to any nation leader ruling over their country?
There is video footage of Klaus Schwab telling an interviewer that the WEF (World Economic Forum) has infiltrated the Canadian government.
Probably not the best use of words, but the really strange thing is the deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Chrystia Freeland is on the WEF Board of Trustees.
How can any citizen have trust in their leaders when it is clear they support organizations that have a diametrically opposed view on how the world should be?
On the one hand, you have countries and nations, on the other you have no nations, no countries.
I am sure if the voting public knew it would be a problem, but the globalists are smart and they know people will not accept their view of the world without getting something in return.
It is difficult to coerce people.
It’s much easier to placate and the globalists know that, therefore, they give you a little something every time they take away a piece of your freedom.
Case in point, Apple Watch that called 911 for a man who crashed his bike. That’s great, isn’t it?
Only thing is it’s a shackle, albeit a cool and unobtrusive one.
It’s still a shackle.
The problem with this is almost everyone will view this as a good thing.
They will point out that the person was saved because 911 was called.
Why shouldn’t that be considered good?
It is difficult to argue with that and that is the reason technology like this is used as a carrot before it is used as a stick.
Look at Canada yet again, the public health agency tracked 33 million mobile devices during the covid lockdown.
There are just over 38 million people in Canada. As far as I know nothing happened, but imagine, they decided to fine everyone who left their house, or street?
Imagine they decided to now cross-correlate your movements with people who they now know were in the freedom protest in Ottawa?
What sinister objectives would that create?
Hopefully, as I said earlier my conspiracy hat is on too tight, but we’ve seen it time and time again.
With every shiny new thing we as a society have been given, there is something more important being incrementally taken away, we just don’t notice and by that time we do, we say, meh. It’s not a big deal.
Those who don’t think it a big deal then look at those who do think it’s a big deal and they can’t understand why they are making a mountain out of a molehill. They say
“is this is hill you want to die on?”
Everyone who looks says,
“dude, you really think this is a big deal? You’re crazy.”
They laugh and ridicule because the changes are so small they are almost imperceptible, and because most people care about their lives and not the big picture, they don’t see the erosion of their rights.
I can’t tell you how many people I know, including my family, agree with the police crackdown and invoking the Emergencies Act regarding the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa.
To them, they see a bunch of truckers occupying the capital.
I like to thank the press for creating and perpetuating that narrative - it worked.
The one thing the globalists are is organized, and that machine came full force against the convoy.
There will be a reckoning in time regarding the Emergencies Act.
I am confident it will be found illegal, but it won’t matter, most of the population will think it was justified.
Everyone just needs to remember, if you aren’t willing to die on a hill, by the time you’re ready, you’ll be at the top of Everest with nowhere to go.
If anyone reading this is still not convinced, just look at the creation of the TSA in 2001, the USA.
In the last 20 years how much power have they grabbed to the determent of your free movement?
It used to be just airports now, it includes railroads what's next?
Page 26, eternal truths. You know, ones like freedom and justice they are meaningless.
“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society.
But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
So, am I to understand that its basically, a free for all?
All because of a class struggle, it’s necessary to destroy literally everything so the little guy can be equal?
The thing I find interesting as I read the manifesto is there is very little talk of the proletariat compared to the bourgeoisie, one would think a group of people who are taking political power away from the bourgeoisie there would be a little more talk, but here he seems to step it up and give us a taste of what is in store.
“We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees,
- all capital from the bourgeoisie
- to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State
- proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures.
Therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves,necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.”
As we’ve seen in the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea, they aren’t as efficient as the West when it comes to “modes of production".
In case you didn’t know the Soviets received loans from the US not to mention the Soviets bought a watch factory from the US as well.
So much for communism. Do you see the inherent hypocrisy?
Even if you support what Marx is advocating, his entire argument falls down if he needs to rely on bourgeoisie modes of production.
It’s clear communism can’t/won’t work if he has to rely on the current way of doing things to get things rolling.
It’s much like your child not wanting to live under your roof, so they move out, yet ask you to pay a few months rent, dishes, a couch, a bed, and some clothes, not to mention a few bucks just in case, so they can get on their feet.
My personal belief is the reason communism as we know it doesn’t work is because this is not a national system, but an international system.
It can’t and won’t work on a country level, because it is designed to work on a global level.
I don’t think, either Mao or Stalin, or anyone else before them, understood this was to be a global initiative.
The people working in the background, the one’s whose names you don’t know, who are the puppet masters, are the ones who truly understand what this manifesto is truly about.
I’m not saying they weren’t smart I’m saying they took Marx at face value and the people who were pulling their strings allowed that to happen because it pushed their agenda forward.
Or, maybe those were test runs - just to work out the kinks.
Yes, I know, unverified conspiracy drivel, blah, blah, blah.
Again, you may not believe, but if you control the choices someone makes, do they really have a choice?
Is not the outcome the same?
It just takes a different path to reach the same conclusion.
Take globalism, Marx says it’s bad, yet he wants the workers of the world to unite.
Unite in what, exactly?
If you have no country doesn’t that mean there are no borders?
And since we are apparently all the same, a worker could literally move anywhere, with no passport, not worry about the local culture because it’s the same and continue along his merry way.
How people thought this was possible is boggling the mind.
Even the most ideal way of thinking this doesn’t even sound plausible.