Architects Of The Culture Of Death

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1296275' date='Jun 15 2007, 05:24 PM']Yes the pope was called a "righteous gentile" by many jewish rabbi's of the time.[/quote]

Pope John Paul II was called a true and genuiine individual that followed the teachings of Jesus the Prophet by Muslim Clerics in Iran, thou I wouldn't put him the same lump.

If you blame Marx for the death of millions, then you have to put Theodore Hertzl in the same group as Hitler, along with all the modern foundation of the secular state of Isreal, as the decendants of Hertzl, the Lehi fought alongside with Hitler and his Vision [and their vision] resulted in the Secular State of Isreal.

Reza

[GodChaser]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1296483' date='Jun 16 2007, 03:52 AM']If you blame Marx for the death of millions, then you have to put Theodore Hertzl in the same group as Hitler, along with all the modern foundation of the secular state of Isreal, as the decendants of Hertzl, the Lehi fought alongside with Hitler and his Vision [and their vision] resulted in the Secular State of Isreal.

Reza[/quote]
To answer your question myself,

Yes I do put them along side. Athiests are butchering murderors who have very little concious, when they become leaders of nations. If you don't believe in the son, you show very little value for any kind of life. It's all pieces of meat in their eyes. And hence, why they can kill hundreds of millions in a hundred years or so.

[Akalyte]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1296483' date='Jun 16 2007, 04:52 AM']Pope John Paul II was called a true and genuiine individual that followed the teachings of Jesus the Prophet by Muslim Clerics in Iran, thou I wouldn't put him the same lump.

If you blame Marx for the death of millions, then you have to put Theodore Hertzl in the same group as Hitler, along with all the modern foundation of the secular state of Isreal, as the decendants of Hertzl, the Lehi fought alongside with Hitler and his Vision [and their vision] resulted in the Secular State of Isreal.

Reza[/quote]

Marx was obsessed with violent revolution, so were/are the fans of Marx. Godchaser posted some figures which are pretty interesting did you see them? Marx envisioned a world were people were freed from the chains of spirituality and religion, or anything not communism. A whole lot of people were killed instead. After reading half of this book im shocked because I see the attitudes (of these architects)and ways of thinking in people i encounter day by day at work and at home. American colleges during the 60's were making everyone read the works of these madman. In turn the people reading them were becoming mad themselves. Quite literally, this book has really opened my eyes to the madness in the world today.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1296542' date='Jun 16 2007, 07:54 AM']Marx was obsessed with violent revolution, so were/are the fans of Marx. Godchaser posted some figures which are pretty interesting did you see them? Marx envisioned a world were people were freed from the chains of spirituality and religion, or anything not communism. A whole lot of people were killed instead. After reading half of this book im shocked because I see the attitudes (of these architects)and ways of thinking in people i encounter day by day at work and at home. American colleges during the 60's were making everyone read the works of these madman. In turn the people reading them were becoming mad themselves. Quite literally, this book has really opened my eyes to the madness in the world today.[/quote]

Hertzl is no different but Christian Zionists have no problem with him... Not only is his work taught in colleges [as Marx is] but it's taught in churches too!

Edited June 16, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Socrates]

[quote name='Justified Saint' post='1296061' date='Jun 15 2007, 01:13 PM']That may be so, but to say that "Marx killed 100 million people," is quite simply an historically irresponsible statement that suggests that the shoes of Lenin or Stalin could have really been filled by anyone since Marx already "laid the foundation." If you cannot concede that point, then we will have to agree to disagree because I think a statement like that vastly overpriveleges the historical agency of intellectualism just as Marx overpriveleged materialism.

The problem is that you suppose that Marx, Lenin and Stalin as well as other communist dictators were all joined at the hip in historical lineage. However, I am more suspicious of uncritically lumping Marx together with that company.[/quote]
All Communist revolutionaries and dictators took Marx's theories as their basis. While their evil probably went beyond even what Marx could have imagined, Marx's thought was the genesis of this evil.

[quote]That is pretty cool having Dr. Carroll as a history teacher. However, a couple of problems I see here is that firstly you equate revolution with Marxism. Revolution is not unique to Marxism. Additionally, it is a bad reading of Marx to argue that the Marxist understanding of revolution is only a "tearing down and destroying all existing society." The whole point of the [i]Manifesto[/i] is to argue that the triumph of communism could only come at a certan time and under certain conditions. The rise of capitalism and industrial labor is essential to that culmination, which is why it is easy to argue that the communist revolution happened prematurely in Russia. Thus the point is not to tear down and destroy those conditions, but to bring them, in Marx's eyes, to their proper fulfilment. That may involve violence and overthrow, but that doesn't mean Marx wants to completely tear down society and rebuild it. If that is what happened in subsequent communist revolutions, then it only validates the disjunction that should exist between Marxist theory and its enactors.[/quote]
The true revolution which involves tearing down an entire existing society and attempting to replace it with something else did not in fact originate with Karl Marx, but with the French Revolution, whose terror, bloodshed, and godless anti-religion foreshadow the later (and even bloodier) Communist revolutions.

Marx did indeed believe in "tearing down and destroying all existing society," and worked hard to promote this goal.
Marx declared:[quote][Communism]overturns the basis of all earlier relations of production and intercourse, and for the first time consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures of hitherto existing men, strips them of their natural character, and subjugates them to the power of united individuals. Its organisation is, threefore, essentially economic, the material production of the conditions of this unity; it turns existing conditions into conditions of unity.[/quote]

Marx was heavily involved in the founding of the Communist League in London, which had the delcared goals of:[quote]the overthrow of the bourgoisie, the domination of the proletariat, the abolition of the old bourgeois societybased on class antagonisms, and the establishment of a new society without classes and without private property.[/quote]And I'll repeat my earlier quote from the Communist Manifesto:[quote]The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. [b]They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution.[/b] The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries, unite![/quote]

It is quite obvious that Marx was for forcible revolution. He did not just write about this as an intellectual abstraction, but was actively involved in starting up Communist organizations in various countries to promote this revolution. (Though he was not successful in actually starting a revolution in his lifetime.)

[quote]I would indeed agree with you that the American Revolution was a conservative revolution, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a revolution. It was an overthow of government by means of force and that is what a revolution is. For even if the colonials wanted to completely overthrow the British Crown, that would have been essentially impossible. They could barely defend their own land, much less invade England across the Atlantic Ocean. Also, it is not as if the founding fathers were one monolithic entity. It is one thing to talk about George Washington as a founding father and quite another to talk about Thomas Jefferson as one. Yet, both men exercised a lot of influence.[/quote]The American War for Independence did not overthrow the King of England - it was a war of independence from the King's rule. George III remained King of England, and was recognized as such by America after the war. America was just no longer subject to English rule, but was self-governed.

This is quite different from the complete overthrow and destruction of existing society as called for by Marx in the passages quoted above.

[quote]Be that as it may, I guess I am willing to give more weight to Marx's theoretical work than a letter he wrote to friend.
Actually, if you want to be technical, I objected to your charge of "godlessness" as being irrelevant to which you responded by equivocating that which is "godless" with "anti-religious." And on that point, I think my arguments are perfectly valid given the fact that there are religions which are non-theistic and quite traditional too. I'll agree that it is "godless" in a certain traditional understanding of the term, but I will not agree that it is entirely "anti-religious" since the whole manifesto betrays a religiosity that flies in the face of any conventional scientific understanding of the text. And again, there is nohting novel or unique in such an interpretation.[/quote]
This is a lot of quibbling and nit-picking which really seems quite pointless. Marx was an obvious enemy of Christianity and true religion.

And I'm honestly having trouble seeing the point of your argument here. Are you trying to defend Marx? Or are you just trying to pick apart and quibble with anything I say for its own sake?

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1296970' date='Jun 16 2007, 06:41 PM']The American War for Independence did not overthrow the King of England - it was a war of independence from the King's rule. George III remained King of England, and was recognized as such by America after the war. America was just no longer subject to English rule, but was self-governed.[/quote]

Yet, overthrowing King George III was never an option anyway. The colonials did the next best thing, they overthrew the British provincial government. The point of comparison was not meant to confuse one revolution with another, but only to show how your reduction of Marxism to simply the preaching of rebellion and revolution necessarily confuses all revolutions as the same.

[quote]This is a lot of quibbling and nit-picking which really seems quite pointless. Marx was an obvious enemy of Christianity and true religion.

And I'm honestly having trouble seeing the point of your argument here. Are you trying to defend Marx? Or are you just trying to pick apart and quibble with anything I say for its own sake?[/quote]

I mean to do neither. Though I find it ironic that for all your praise of the importance and consequences of words and ideas, that you can only be dismissive of finer distinctions, which in this context are rather quite substantial given what I see as your defense of some gross over-statements.

[Justified Saint]

double post, again!

Edited June 17, 2007 by Justified Saint

[GodChaser]

[img]http://content.onlineagency.com/sites/38289/images/ilovemaorockefeller.jpg[/img]

[quote name='David Rockefeller' date=' New York Times, 1973']"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."[/quote]


I had to put this one up for everybody. See why I don't like David Rockefeller so much!

Edited June 25, 2007 by GodChaser

[Budge]

HMMM speking of MARX...


Got to quote Marx to help the cause of global COMMUNISM.
[quote]
Quote: Pope Benedict XVI cites Marx in his new book on Jesus

Vatican City - Pope Benedict XVI draws from Karl Marx's theory of alienation in his forthcoming book on Jesus Christ to illustrate his point that the biblical parable of the Good Samaritan is still relevant today. The reference to the 19th-Century German philosopher and founder of modern communism is found in chapter seven of Jesus of Nazareth, extracts of which were published Wednesday by Italian daily Corriere della Sera.
[b]"Karl Marx describes man's alienation in a drastic way; although by limiting his reasoning to the material sphere he fails to reach the true depths of alienation, he nevertheless provides a clear image of the man who falls victim to the robbers," Joseph Ratzinger writes.[/b]

In his book, the pope sees the biblical account of the Samaritan who rescues and cares for a stranger who has been robbed and beaten while on his way to Jericho as a metaphor that should teach modern day Catholics to care for their neighbours, whether they are a drug addict or an African whose country has been "looted and robbed" by colonialists.

"Is it not true that man ... during the full course of his history, finds himself alienated, mangled, abused?" the pope writes.

The book, his first since his election as pope two years ago, is due to be published next April 16, the day of his 80th birthday, in Italian, German and Polish.[/quote]


www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/47707.html

Wisdom from Karl Marx?

You telling me the pope couldnt find a better source.

The UN is basically an organization advancing world communism and the Vatican supports that all the way.

Dont get me started on the "common good" garbage and "solidarity"

[Budge]

Im sure Socrates will tell me I took it out of context and Im just imagining things...



For those in the know, the powers that be want to exploit world poverty to issue a United Nations world tax and much much more.

If you think these folks really care about the poor and arent just advancing their NWO socialist agenda, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

You know Benedict is even USING THE SAME LANGUAGE AS MARX.

[b]Communism had at its FOREFRONT THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.[/b]

Income redistribution or redistribution of wealth is a political policy promoted by members of the political left, especially socialists, and opposed by members of the political right.
[quote]
Quote:Pope blesses Make Poverty History movement

Photo: Reuters
Click to enlarge
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict hailed Saturday's Make Poverty History rally in Scotland and urged world leaders to honour past commitments to help the world's poorest people.

"God intended the earth and all it contains for the use of everyone and of all peoples," the Pope said in a message sent to Scottish Cardinal Keith Patrick O'Brien.

"For this reason, people from the world's richest countries ... should urge their leaders to fulfil the pledges made to reduce world poverty, especially in Africa, by the year 2015," he added.

Saturday's demonstration in Edinburgh was aimed at putting pressure on the leaders of wealthy nations to agree measures to tackle global poverty at a summit in Scotland next week.
[b]The Pope said he would pray for the leaders to play "their part in ensuring a more just distribution of the world's goods."[/b][/quote]



Papal SOLIDARITY EQUALS WORLD COMMUNISM--REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH..

[Justified Saint]

Budge,

Had you ever read anything by Pope Benedict, you would know he is about as vocal as they come in his criticism of Marxism. Of course, I could easily document all this, but you don't really care anyway. The pope is the anti-christ and that is all that really matters to you, the rest it just so many vain details. It would take a lot more charity to assume that you actually read sources you disagree with than it would be to assume that Pope Benedict has no Marxist sympathies.

Nonetheless, I suspect your enthusaism for social alienation is about the same that so-called Christians had when they tried to justify slavery or child labor. If your a fundamentalist, none of that stuff really matters though does it?

For the same reason you have no qualms about peddling your distortions and lies here. Heaven is still promised to you in the end, so what is the harm in taking a few short-cuts? I'll admit, that all has a very compelling logic to it, but if Marx has no place in heaven, I am sure that Machiavelli doesn't either.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Justified Saint

[Budge]

Benedict supports the UN and global "redistribution of wealth"

That alone makes him a wannabe "Marxist"

Right from the Vatican...

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...ott-soc_en.html[/url]
[quote]
177. [b]Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable:[/b] “On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone”[372]. The principle of the universal destination of goods is an affirmation both of God's full and perennial lordship over every reality and of the requirement that the goods of creation remain ever destined to the development of the whole person and of all humanity[373]. This principle is not opposed to the right to private property[374] but indicates the need to regulate it. Private property, in fact, regardless of the concrete forms of the regulations and juridical norms relative to it, is in its essence only an instrument for respecting the principle of the universal destination of goods; in the final analysis, therefore, it is not an end but a means[375].[/quote]

"Common Good" is Commie talk....

[quote]194. The message of the Church's social doctrine[b]regarding solidarity clearly shows that there exists an intimate bond between solidarity and the [u]common good[/u], [/b]between solidarity and the universal destination of goods, between solidarity and equality among men and peoples, between solidarity and peace in the world[420].[/quote]

CALLS FOR REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH:

[quote]363. [b]Looking after the[u] common good[/u] means making use of the new opportunities for the redistribution of wealth among the different areas of the planet, to the benefit of the underprivileged that until now have been excluded or cast to the sidelines of social and economic progress.[[/b]750] “The challenge, in short, is to ensure a globalization in solidarity, a globalization without marginalization”.[751] This technological progress itself risks being unfairly distributed among countries. In fact, technological innovations can penetrate and spread within a specific community only if the potential beneficiaries have a minimum level of knowledge and financial resources. It is evident that, because of the great disparities between countries regarding access to technical and scientific knowledge and to the most recent products of technology, the process of globalization ends up increasing rather than decreasing the inequalities between countries in terms of economic and social development. Given the nature of the current dynamics, the free circulation of capital is not of itself sufficient to close the gap between developing countries and the more advanced countries.[/quote]

One term that keeps cropping up is COMMON GOOD.

They sound like HIllary Clinton...
[quote]

The leftiest big city on the Left Coast was Clinton country on Monday, with former President Clinton continuing his blockbuster book tour and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton headlining a Democratic fund-raiser where she vowed to defeat the Republicans' "extraordinarily ruthless machine."

Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters -- some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend -- to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. [b]We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."[/b][/quote]

Some of you want to remain blind and in denial...

but this is all about world socialism--world communism via the United nations. They dont want christians sharing what they have, they want FORCED REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH VIA RULE OF LAW, VIA THE UNITED NATIONS AND G8.

[quote]
Code: ZE04020820

Date: 2004-02-08

John Paul II's Address to President of U.N. General Assembly


VATICAN CITY, FEB. 8, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address John Paul II delivered Saturday to Julian Robert Hunte, president of the U.N. 58th General Assembly.

* * *

Mr. President,

I am pleased to welcome you to the Vatican in your capacity as the President of the 58th General Assembly of the United Nations.
[b]As you know, the Holy See considers the United Nations Organization a significant means for promoting the universal common good. [/b]You have undertaken a restructuring aimed at making the Organization function more efficiently. This will not only ensure an effective superior instance for the just resolution of international problems, but also enable the United Nations to become an ever more highly respected moral authority for the international community.[/quote]


Vatican "common good" SAME as MARXIST "Common good"
[quote]
The vision of communism was very similar to that of anarchism: a stateless society in which central government had "withered away," local, ground-up control of all affairs by strictly democratic processes based at the place of work, abolition of the market system (no money, no buying and selling) [b]and its replacement by a system according to which people would voluntarily work for the common good[/b] to the extent they were able under the understanding that they could receive whatever they needed for free ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). National boundaries and governments having been eliminated, war would cease.[/quote]

[url="http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=Marx+and+Lenin+and+%22the+common+good%27&btnG=Google+Search"]MARX, LENIN AND THE COMMON GOOD[/url]

Oh and JS when you switch the topic to saying stuff about ME, that pretty much shows me you have no answer for this stuff.

[Justified Saint]

I thought we were talking about Pope Benedict XVI? Now we are on the Vatican, social justice theory, and JPII? I can barely keep up with your sophistry. But again, it doesn't really matter what you call it, right? Ratzinger, John Paul II, Marx it's all the devil! That is the US vs THEM mentality that fundamentalists are gaga over.

In any case, I suspect that whole "common good" thing has to do with that whole "love thy neighbor" thing. Have you ever read Acts where the apostles sold all their possesions and cared for the common good? I am guessing that is not in your Bible.

But now that I come to think of it, those Christians sure do use the word "love" a lot. A lot like those hippies and quasi-Marxists. I am suspicious...

I never thought I could be cynic enough to say this, but the brick wall is looking a lot more adept right about now.

[Budge]

[Oh so Benedict has NOTHING to do with the Vatican or continiuing the policies and plans of JPII__Benedict even had an ASSISI III?

I dont see forced giving between nations run by the UN, as something that was taught by Jesus Christ nor does it have ANYTHING to do with LOVE.

Sorry but the United Nations and global elites dont WUV you. Hillary Clinton when she preaches on the "common good" doesnt either.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Budge

[jeffpugh]

Wow, Budge missed the point. Again.