Why Communism Failed 2

Title: Why Communism Failed: A Kryptonian Reflection on Usury
By Clark Kent (a.k.a. Superman)


Thesis: Communism failed not because of its ideals, but because it failed to abolish the ancient practice of usury—borrowing money at interest—which ultimately corrupted both capitalist and communist societies alike.


Introduction

Most mainstream histories tell us that communism collapsed due to inefficiencies, corruption, or the suppression of individual freedoms. But these explanations, though not entirely wrong, only skim the surface. As a reporter—and as someone who’s watched civilizations rise and fall across the stars—I offer a deeper truth: communism was defeated not by democracy or the free market, but by an invisible enemy that neither Marx nor Lenin had the courage to confront—usury.

Usury, the practice of charging interest on loans, is an ancient engine of economic enslavement. While communism claimed to abolish private property and capitalist exploitation, it never eliminated the parasitic mechanism of debt-based currency. Instead, it merely replaced the bourgeois bankers with state apparatchiks who borrowed on behalf of the people—locking entire nations into cycles of debt and stagnation.


Marx Ignored the Money Power

Karl Marx meticulously analyzed the ownership of the means of production. Yet he remained strangely silent on the issue of money creation and debt issuance, the real levers of power behind the curtain. Marx attacked the capitalist, the factory owner, and the landlord—but not the lender.

In truth, it doesn’t matter whether the capitalist or the commissar runs the factory, if the money that builds it is borrowed at interest. Debt, like kryptonite, weakens any economic body from within. Interest-bearing loans create an impossible arithmetic: more must always be paid back than was borrowed, leading inevitably to collapse, either through inflation, confiscation, or default.


Soviet Borrowing: A Hidden Dependency

Though the Soviet Union publicly rejected capitalism, it quietly engaged in international borrowing from both Eastern Bloc and Western banks. These loans, often denominated in hard currencies like the U.S. dollar, put the Soviet economy under invisible foreign pressure.

Internally, the USSR operated on credit as well. State-owned banks issued loans to collective farms, industries, and municipalities. Though not explicitly called “interest,” fees, targets, and repayment schemes mimicked the usurious model. The supposed abolition of exploitation was replaced by a faceless bureaucracy that collected debts in the name of the people, while failing to stimulate innovation, productivity, or true autonomy.


The Illusion of Liberation

Communism promised to free workers from exploitation, but the tool of usury remained firmly embedded in its structure. Why? Because neither communism nor capitalism dared to confront the central lie of modern economics: money is created as debt, and interest must be paid, even if it means war, austerity, or starvation.

The worker in Detroit and the worker in Donetsk both ended up slaves—not to capital or the commissar—but to the creditor. The Soviet dream of full employment and class equality was crushed not by NATO bombs, but by the silent math of compound interest.


A Kryptonian Perspective

On Krypton, before its fall, our civilization banned usury. It was considered a crime against the collective soul. We understood that when money itself is treated as a commodity, it corrupts every institution. Law becomes debt collection. Education becomes a loan trap. Medicine becomes an interest-generating racket.

Earth, too, has known this wisdom. Ancient prophets, philosophers, and even the founders of major religions warned against lending at interest. Yet in modern times, this wisdom has been buried, discredited, and replaced by euphemisms like “credit score” and “APR.”


Conclusion

Communism failed not because it tried to eliminate inequality—but because it failed to eliminate usury. A truly just society—whether capitalist, socialist, or Kryptonian—must place strict limits on the creation of debt, and reimagine money not as a tool of control, but as a public utility.

Until the world confronts usury—the root rot of both red and blue flags—no ideology will prevail. And no hero, not even Superman, can save a world enslaved by invisible chains of debt.


Byline: Clark Kent is a journalist at the Daily Planet, an immigrant from Krypton, and a passionate advocate for economic truth and human dignity.

Lucifer VS Michael on FOX

Title: Lucifer“Blades of Fire”

Teaser (Opening Scene)
Location: Lux, Lucifer’s penthouse club.

The camera pans over a lively crowd enjoying drinks and music. Lucifer (Tom Ellis) sits at the bar, spinning a tiny cocktail sword between his fingers. Maze (Lesley-Ann Brandt) approaches, holding a tray of drinks.

Maze: (smirking)
Lucifer, you’ve got that look. What trouble are you brewing now?

Lucifer: (grinning)
Trouble? Maze, I’m merely pondering the fragility of humanity… and how adorable their tiny weapons are.

He flicks the cocktail sword. It clatters onto the bar.

Maze: (rolling her eyes)
Right. Pondering. Just don’t use anyone as a human shield this time.

Suddenly, the lights flicker. A powerful gust of wind blows through Lux, sending napkins and glasses flying. The music stops, and the crowd gasps. Archangel Michael (Tom Ellis in a dual role, slightly scruffier and more intense) materializes at the entrance, wings spread wide.

Michael: (sternly)
Lucifer. It’s time we settle this once and for all.

Lucifer: (sighs, standing up)
Oh, for heaven’s sake, Michael. Can’t you just send an RSVP like a normal sibling?

Michael strides forward, eyes blazing.

Michael:
No more games. No more distractions. You’ve meddled with humanity enough.

Lucifer: (smirking, picking up another cocktail sword)
Meddled? Michael, I think you mean “helped.” And speaking of help, can I get a refill before you start swinging that righteous fury around?

Lucifer tosses the cocktail sword casually into the air. Mid-spin, it transforms into a glowing flaming sword. The crowd gasps again.

Lucifer: (mock surprise)
Oh, look at that. Fancy.

Michael: (summoning his own flaming sword)
You’re not charming your way out of this one.

Lucifer:
Wouldn’t dream of it. Shall we?

The brothers charge at each other, clashing swords in a blaze of fire. Sparks fly, illuminating Lux in dramatic reds and golds.


Act 1

Scene: The battle escalates. Furniture is destroyed, and Lux’s patrons flee, except for Maze, who watches with glee.

Maze: (to herself)
Best. Fight. Ever.

Michael gains the upper hand, pinning Lucifer against the bar. Lucifer struggles, then notices a tray of cocktail swords nearby.

Lucifer:
Michael, you’re so predictable. Always brute force, never creativity.

Lucifer grabs a handful of cocktail swords and hurls them into the air. With a snap of his fingers, they all transform into flaming projectiles, forcing Michael to retreat.

Michael: (gritting his teeth)
Your tricks won’t save you.

Lucifer: (grinning)
Who said they were tricks?

Lucifer leaps over the bar, landing behind Michael. He parries a blow, the flaming swords lighting up the room in spectacular fashion.

Cut to Chloe (Lauren German) and Ella (Aimee Garcia) arriving outside Lux.

Chloe: (looking at the chaos through the window)
What now?

Ella:
I don’t know, but it looks like the Fourth of July in there.

They rush inside, dodging debris as the brothers continue their epic battle.


Act 2

Scene: Chloe intervenes, shouting at Lucifer to stop.

Chloe: (angry)
Lucifer! What the hell is going on?

Lucifer pauses, dodging Michael’s swing.

Lucifer:
Detective! Just a minor sibling disagreement. Nothing to worry about.

Michael: (annoyed)
Stay out of this, mortal.

Chloe: (to Michael)
Mortal or not, you’re wrecking my city.

Lucifer: (to Chloe)
See? This is why you’re my favorite.

Chloe pulls out her gun and fires a warning shot into the ceiling. Both brothers freeze.

Chloe:
You two are going to sit down and talk. Right. Now.

Lucifer and Michael exchange a reluctant glance, their flaming swords extinguishing. Maze laughs in the background.

Maze:
I can’t believe she just mom’d you two.


Act 3

Scene: Lucifer, Michael, and Chloe sit at a table amidst the destruction. The tension is thick.

Chloe:
Start talking. Why are you two trying to kill each other?

Michael: (reluctant)
He’s a threat to the balance.

Lucifer:
Oh, please. I’m doing more good down here than you’ve ever done up there.

Chloe:
Enough. Fix this. Both of you.

Lucifer and Michael exchange a grudging look. Maze approaches with a tray of drinks.

Maze:
Peace talks require refreshments.

She sets down the drinks, each with a tiny cocktail sword sticking out. Lucifer smirks, holding one up.

Lucifer:
Cheers, brother.

Michael glares but reluctantly raises his glass. The camera pans out as the two brothers clink glasses, their rivalry unresolved but temporarily subdued.


End Scene:

Cut to Maze surveying the damage in Lux, looking pleased.

Maze: (to herself)
Totally worth it.

Fade to black.


Would you like any specific tweaks or additions?

The Coronation of King Charles III

Essay: The Legacy of King Charles II’s Tally Sticks and King Charles III’s Battle with Modern Moneylenders

The history of Britain has often revolved around the tensions between sovereign authority and financial power. From the tally sticks of King Charles II to the modern era of King Charles III, this narrative reflects an ongoing struggle between monarchy and moneylenders, as well as broader conspiratorial claims surrounding Princess Diana’s tragic death. This essay explores the historical and modern dimensions of these topics, delving into the symbolism of tally sticks, the speculative conflict with so-called “Illuminati” moneylenders, and the cultural resonance of Princess Diana’s demise.

The Tally Sticks: A Symbol of Sovereignty

King Charles II reigned during a transformative period in British history, marked by the restoration of the monarchy and significant financial developments. One of his most enduring legacies was the use of tally sticks, a rudimentary yet effective financial tool used to track debts and payments. Tally sticks served as an early form of credit and taxation, bypassing the influence of external moneylenders by relying on a state-controlled system.

The tally stick system symbolized a monarchy seeking to maintain economic autonomy. It was a clear rejection of foreign or private financial control, a precedent set by earlier monarchs like Edward I. By centralizing financial accountability, tally sticks reinforced the sovereign’s authority over the economy, preventing undue influence by external creditors.

King Charles III: A New Battle for Sovereignty?

Fast-forward to the modern era, and the reign of King Charles III has evoked a different kind of financial and political tension. While tally sticks are long obsolete, the battle for sovereignty over economic systems persists in more complex forms. Conspiracy theories have proliferated, painting King Charles III as a potential opponent of globalist financial elites, often referred to as “Illuminati” moneylenders.

These narratives, steeped in suspicion of centralized financial systems like central banks and international monetary policies, posit that modern monarchs are at odds with clandestine forces controlling global wealth. The idea is that King Charles III, as a symbolic figurehead, could challenge these forces, echoing the sovereignty symbolized by tally sticks centuries earlier.

Diana’s Tragedy and the Conspiratorial Undertones

The death of Princess Diana in 1997 remains one of the most controversial and discussed events in modern history. Many conspiracy theories suggest that her death was not accidental but orchestrated by shadowy elites, potentially tied to the financial and political machinations of global power brokers. These theories often suggest that Diana’s openness, humanitarian work, and public criticism of certain aspects of royal life posed a threat to entrenched interests.

The connection between Diana’s death and modern financial conspiracies often intersects with narratives surrounding the royal family’s relationship with global power structures. For proponents of such theories, King Charles III’s ascension to the throne represents an opportunity to challenge the systems and individuals allegedly responsible for Diana’s death and other acts of perceived injustice.

The Power of Symbolism and Legacy

The connection between the tally sticks of Charles II and the alleged modern struggles of Charles III lies in their symbolic value. Both are emblematic of broader societal tensions: the tally sticks represented a fight against foreign financial dependence, while conspiracy theories about Charles III reflect anxieties over global financial systems’ perceived control.

However, while historical evidence supports the use and significance of tally sticks, the claims about Diana’s death and the Illuminati moneylenders often lack verifiable proof. These narratives, though compelling to some, are best understood as modern myths that reflect deeper societal concerns about sovereignty, justice, and the balance of power.

Conclusion

From the tally sticks of King Charles II to the speculative battles faced by King Charles III, the British monarchy has long been intertwined with narratives of financial sovereignty and power struggles. While the historical record affirms Charles II’s efforts to assert economic independence, the conspiratorial claims surrounding Charles III and Diana’s death reveal the enduring fascination and suspicion surrounding global financial systems. These stories, whether rooted in fact or fiction, continue to captivate public imagination, underscoring the monarchy’s symbolic role in broader debates about power, money, and justice.