Sunday, April 6, 2008

al qaeda - communism, same same

Finally I get it.

I was pondering communism and Karl Marx's complete and impossible failure to address central banking. And a light bulb went off. Al Qaeda, exactly like communism, has impossibly, unbelievably never mentioned central banking.

Think about it. Al Qaeda, we are told, is an expression of Muslim fanaticism. They hate infidels occupying Muslim lands and they hate the state of Israel. And yet they've never attacked Israel. Further, in Islam, usury is a sin. How is it possible that the ultimate expression of Islamic fanaticism has nothing to say on the ultimate expression of usury, which is to say international banking? Surely if one thought usury was a sin, the twelve families that control international banking and central banks the world over would comprise an unparalleled ultimate in sinfulness? Surely central banking would be infinitely more deserving of the epithet 'Great Satan' than its American proxy?

Does anything about Al Qaeda make any sense? Bin Laden was precisely a CIA asset who died seven years ago. Al Qaeda's number three is Adam Pearlman, a previously Muslim-hating Jewish boy from Orange County. Their number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri impossibly tells us to listen to number three. All of them jabber on about everybody but international banking. When they attack, they attack everybody but international banking. Were Al Qaeda for real it would have put a 757 into the US Federal Reserve.

Communism was all about improving the lot of the poor and yet anyone living under communism lived a life of perfect misery. The only people allowed to escape communism were, inexplicably, Jews who went to Israel.

Al Qaeda is all about advancing the interests of Islam and yet no one has suffered more from its actions than Muslims. They're dying and suffering in staggering numbers. Al Qaeda advances the interests of Muslims in no way whatsoever. And Jews, whom Al Qaeda ostensibly hates, seem to dance between the raindrops. The number of Jewish casualties at the hands of Al Qaeda is what, exactly? You may view this as a rhetorical question. Or you may answer it. I'm good either way. Have you thought of any yet? There was that guy on the plane, um...

Let's not forget monetarism, which is the philosophy that explains why everyone needs a central bank. Monetarism as a mechanism for controlling wages and prices is a clunky model of inefficiency. But as a means for impoverishing the population and delivering the maximum amount of money into the hands of the central banks it's a streamlined speed-machine. Likewise communism. As a mechanism of improving the lot of the workers of the world it was a shitfight and a demonstrable failure. However, as a means of reducing the world to chaos and having everyone fighting each other (with central banking untouched on the sidelines) it couldn't have been better designed. And sure enough, was I to apply this description of communism to Al Qaeda I would only need to substitute 'Muslims' for 'workers of the world'.

So choose. Choose between: the Jewish media's relentless idiotic blather about an Al Qaeda that makes no sense; and an infinitely more likely Al Qaeda as a couldn't-be-bettered model of chaos-creation that seems to suit none but the untouchable families who control international banking.


Anonymous said...

I think you're right nobody, untouchable, unfortunately.

kikz said...

standing O!

i love elegant simplicity. :)

nobody said...

Ta Folks,

Sure enough one line of thought runs into another and I'll pop a new thing up tomorrow.

And where is annemarie? When Les mentioned her the other day, saying people were asking, that was me, ha ha. Come back annemarie, we're all missing you.

annemarie said...

Hey Nobody :)

I'm back, just left a wee comment over at les'. have been on vacation.

thanks fer asking about me.
have much catching up to do, nice to see you back in the saddle.

ok, later. manana or the next day mites :)

nobody said...

Hey matey, and I just had the RCMP on the other line! I'll tell them not to worry...

kikz said...

wb anne :)

Anonymous said...

Similarly Al Qaida seems reluctant to attack Dubai, outpost of American rampant consumerism in the middle east, full of Premiership footballers, Russian gangsters and ridiculous palm shape elite housing siphoning off limited water supplies.

And yet all those glossy well lit skyscrapers seem immune to attack from radical Muslims based on their doorstep. Instead they attack the hideously dangerous target of America itself, and not just America but it's military heart.

The most astonishing thing about 911 is not that it happened, but that millions of supposedly intelligent human beings believe the story they are told about day.

The Zionists might have a point when they talk about us as dumb cattle ripe for exploitation.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant Nobody! You nailed it! What's funny though is none of the puppets get it. Exactly what the Feds are banking on, pardon the pun. lol.

It's like tripping on 'shrooms to look at the precious metals web sites and read "Gold drops on Citi news", only to find the news is a mere $5B loss and 9000 job cuts, which were better than expected. WTF!?!?!? Seems not many caught that headline.

I'm sure most missed the fresh news out of Palestine of the Isreali overnight activities which mammed/killed "x" number of locals.

Albeit, the masses of sheeple did see this week's episode of American Idol. Right after the local news which informed them of the latest roadside bomb/mortar attack that killed American troops in Iraq.

Oh yeah! I'm sure they did hear of the new "Osama" audio that is supposed to be coming out. Uh...???

I am glad WRH posted your more current link on organizing militias or I may have never stumbled across your blog. I have bookmarked you now and will include you in my ritualistic review of my daily sites. It is refreshing to know that there is still life out there and not just the mindless zombies which apparently make up the majority.

nobody said...

anytime bra

Don't mind me if I do the occasional Australia specific story. I do tend to leap from thing to thing. You might groove on the cinema blog. Have a peek, see if you grabs you. Ciao.

The Red Son said...

Interesting correlation, but I am not sure what you are purposing would have been a better route for the Soviets? How would they have attacked the central banks?

nobody said...

You lost me, mate. Why would the Soviets attack the central bank? The central banks put them in business. Marx was very good friends with all those European banks. The purpose of the Bolsheviks was to depose the Tsar and impose a privately owned central bank on Russia. Communism was merely the means he contrived to do it. I suspect that Marx was actually about as concerned for the welfare of the working class as the Zionists are for the Palestinians.

The Red Son said...

Now I'm lost. Didn't your post begin by saying that Marx never addressed central banking?

nobody said...

Sure. He was very good friends with central bankers. And as such he would never mention the banks. The banks, despite their ne-plus-ultra role in the economy, don't exist in Das Kapital. So what Marx did was write the definitive alternative treatise on economics and without mentioning the single most powerful player. Wow. That takes some doing. You have to go hats off to his ability. It's as if I rewrote Romeo and Juliet without mentioning Romeo and Juliet and the play still makes sense and furthermore everyone loves it and recommends it to their friends. That's effectively what he did with Das Kapital.

And that was the point of communism. It was to create an opposition that was still under the control of the banks. And al Qaeda, same same. More or less.

The Red Son said...

I find at very hard to believe that at no point in Capital Vol. I, II, or III he does not mention banks. Regardless, even if does not explicitly talk about the banking system, bankers are members of the bourgeoisie, controlling means of production just like any other capitalist.