Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "" video.

  1. 3
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 1
  7. 1
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29.  @DavidMoxham957  The point I am making is that the elite billionaires who want to rule rule the world have taken Marxist strategies on board to further their aims. Modern capitalism, with its emphasis on hedge fund manipulation rather than industrial investment, needs large sections of the population to be directed according to immediate requirements and Marxists are old hands at this. This why modern investors buy mayors and DA's in US cities and finance organisations like BLM and Antifa. Marxists, especially those of the French school, have built upon techniques employed by Stalin and his successors. They have made them less crude and bloodthirsty but the principles are the same: control of information through education and the media, reward for the compliant and punishment and ostracisation for those who fail to fulfil the roles demanded of them. Trump has intervened in this process by reflecting the somewhat ill-defined objections so many innately conservative people have to the changes they see going on around them. He is, in the words of George Soros " a temporary inconvenience." He has been successfully demonised in the eyes of the gullible, but he is just an ordinary Joe who rather fancied being President and when he managed it set about trying to turn back the clock. This clearly could not be tolerated, and he had to go. Now we have Biden, deliberately inserted in order that his incompetence leads to further disintegration of old school capitalism from the ruins of which a Brave New World is expected to emerge. The Capitol riot was supposed to be a protest. It only went tits up when FBI agents planted in the crowd kicked the door in. Visit Here Is The Evidence for a couple of thousand items relating to the 2020 election scam.
    1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38.  @funbarsolaris2822  You have failed to understand the very important developments which have led to an unholy alliance between Marxism and New World Order capitalism. Why do you think George Soros finances the election of extreme left-wing mayors and DAs in US cities? Why do you think the World Economic Forum recommends systems of social organisation which are simply the Soviet system of administration writ large? Marxism and capitalism have reached a compromise. You only have to look at China to see that. I am not trolling. The movement of capital to increase wealth has moved on from simple investment in industrial production organised by private individuals and consortia into areas where state - and eventually world - control is paramount. This means that the volatility created by democratically elected changes of government cannot be allowed to continue - not in the long run. In the meantime the principle of reflexivity can be used to inject carefully consider instabilities into various national economies, thus producing vast immediate profits as currencies fluctuate. The instabilities lead to discontent and dissent and thus pave the way for revolution - but a very controlled and ordered one. The very, very rich get even richer, but at the same time the world moves towards a structured economy as envisaged by Marx, in which labour is recognised as an asset and is rewarded accordingly and appropriately. The New World Order and Marxism thus have at least two shared objectives -the removal of private ownership and individual entrepreneurs and the abandonment of democratic elections. Old school capitalism, typified as you rightly say by the policies of Thatcher and Reagan, is considered to be a thing of the past. It is just too messy and unpredictable. It is time to move on.
    1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41.  @timothyharris4708  No links. The YouTube algorithm is a tricky beast and I suspect that even mentioning certain items of hardware used in elections gets your post deleted. It happens in other areas too. Sickening really. Yup. Diamond and Silk and all the other black American YouTubers who support Trump seem to me to give considerable refutation to the suggestion that Trump is a racist. The Democrats are scared to death of losing the black vote and so this is just one of the many accusations in the relentless campaign of vilification against him - accusations I myself believed for the first two years of his Presidency. My reasoned argument is that because Donald Trump has not risen through the usual messy political channels he owes nothing to anybody, and he has no skeletons in his cupboard, and despite the most absurd efforts to do so, none can be created. I get the impression that American Presidents are usually taken aside shortly after inauguration and told what they must do -or else. There was no "or else" in Trump's case. As a property developer he was used to giving bribes -not taking them. He is, of course, a man of many faults but he has one outstanding virtue -he is not a career politician. He is quite an ordinary person really. He has second son syndrome of course - like a number of English monarchs -and is under pressure to fill the shoes his elder brother was destined to wear. He is, in short, not a creature of the swamp as Biden is and Obama was. He is his own man, not a front man. and they don't like that. One can add to these observations the further perception that the ceaseless and repetitive "Orange Man Bad" propaganda which continues to assail us is of very low quality, as these things go. Nothing stands up. All you get is school yard accusations of this and that. Nothingburgers, as the Americans say. In the end it defeats its own object -at least if you examine it long and carefully enough, as I have done and you obviously haven't. So this is my serious process of thought - or vapid scribblings if you prefer. Conspiracy theories are rapidly becoming just conspiracies these days, but I don't suppose you've noticed.
    1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47.  @funbarsolaris2822  We are somewhat at cross purposes. Left wing politics, as typified by Sanders and Corbyn, goes on its merry way entirely removed from reality- as it more or less always has been since the end of World War II at least. I am talking about academic neo- Marxism, largely developed in France and Germany in the 50s and 60s. This is of course entirely different to old school socialism, which has become rather stuck in a political backwater after brief earlier successes in the first half of the 20th century, and which has anyway generally backed away from Marxist principles. By the time Reagan and Thatcher came along this form of socialism had fallen into stagnation - as all economic and political philosophies do. They require constant revision. Capitalism has revised itself by taking on some Marxist precepts and Marxism has revised itself by accepting capitalism as an inevitable feature of human conduct. The result has been the New World Order and the Great Reset. Marxists can with a clear conscience accept the principle of economic growth through the manipulation of capital, as long as it is accompanied by what they perceive as an equitable distribution of benefits. Capitalists are grateful for the benefits of having a compliant workforce, and modern technology ensures that all proceedings can be closely monitored. Thus the elitist technocrat can enjoy the lifestyle to which he/she feels entitled, secure in the knowledge that the lives of his/her minions are reasonably comfortable and well ordered, and that all dissent can be met with withdrawal of privileges. Capital and labour are at one at last. We are all equal, but some are more equal than others. Neither the small-time factory owner nor the Labourite shop steward have any place in this new arrangement. Both are defunct. No-one owns anything any more, in fact. Rational decisions as to the distribution of resources and means of production are taken according to principles generally embedded in computer programs and everyone is allocated goods and services appropriate to the contribution they make to the common weal. You are somewhat nostalgic, I think, and nostalgia has no real place in this brave new world cooked up by the World Economic Forum and which is coming slowly but surely into existence even as we speak - or look with tearful eyes at old films of old struggles, now long past.
    1
  48.  @funbarsolaris2822  As I say, this is a somewhat outdated view, The dilemmas and conflicts of interest you outline here are entirely apparent to capitalists as they are to academic Marxists. Both sides know there is no point in trying to settle matters by constantly swinging back and forth between low regulation, low taxation free markets economies and high regulation, high taxation centrally controlled ones. It gets us nowhere. Marxism isn't about milking the rich to feed the poor, as some people seem to think. It's essentially about regulating economies in order that society is kept on an even keel, and that in order to do this it is essential that those who directly create genuine increased value - ie the workforce - are maintained in a sufficiently stable condition to enable them to do so. Marxism in its original form suggested that the best way to do this was to give the workforce control of the means of production by transferring ownership of property and capital to the state. This clearly has not worked because such a system is unresponsive to subtle and sudden changes in the market and general conditions. The solution you seem to favour -one which essentially forces the workforce to act as a parasite on the economy to a degree which bears no relation to whatever input it makes, is equally unworkable - once again as experience has shown. I think you are confusing Marxism with liberal socialism which merely seeks a relationship with capitalism. Marxism wants to subsume it and we are now in a situation whereby capitalism has become so esoteric that it is quite capable of being so subsumed without affecting the wealth of the elite who understand the alchemy involved.
    1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1