Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "The Entire Patrick Bet-David Fiasco" video.

Its Orwellian logic. Its right there all spelled out in "1984." The purpose of doublespeak is to confuse the definitions of language so much that its impossible for people formulate ideas of dissent against the party. Its something BOTH the Radical Left and Radical Right do. I while back before Jordan Peterson bent his brain with drugs and he was being more rational he said that it was easy to know when someone had gone to far to the Right - they became racist. He said it was harder to spot when someone had gone to far to the Left as there was no single clear marker. I think he was wrong. I think the signal that someone is politically going too far (either Left or Right) is when they start trying to control language and THEN use that to control public discussion and drive narratives where dissent of any sort is suppressed.
17
@Taxthechurch That's an interesting question because while the Right are quite easy to identify because they are often loud, the left are harder to point at. Also the Right tend to be narrowly focused on money, race and religion while the lefties cover wider raft of subjects - economics, social issues, environmental, health care, education etc. Its pretty easy to point at particular Right Wing identities an describe them accurately because they only want 1 or 2 things most of the time. Its a little harder on the Left because there's more lot more variety. Here's one of the odd things. The really radical Leftists are almost impossible to identify. Look at movements like Antifa, BLM and the Woke & MeToo groups. There's not a clear leadership let alone a specific leader to any of those groups. There's people who speak at times and that's about all. Among some groups there are some clear leaders but there not groups I'd not classify as radical. Yanis Varoufakis has started Diem 25 which he does describe as a radical organisation BUT their focus is largely economics and I would NOT call them radical either except maybe from an economic standpoint. Greta Thunberg has been labelled a radical young Greenie, but again I don't find her particularly radical other than how young she was when she started. What's radical about a younger person saying "we want a future" and "your economics of infinite growth are ridiculous" I'd suggest you go and look up people like Yanis Varoufakis or Richard Wolff who are are both hard left on economics, but not politics, but then they are both economists. Yanis did a really great interview with David Pakman a while back. I have referred people to it a lot because he points out some basic truths and why we need a significant change in economics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu0lNnXAiL0 There's bits all through that interview that we could discuss for hours. Richard Wolff did a really good series on who Marx actually was and what he was on about. From a basic history lesson its really good. I watched it out of curiosity and was really surprised to find out that Marx was primarily an economist and NOT a political theorist. Its 4 short episodes, its interesting and it sort of explains why Marxism failed which was because it was so easy to hijack by politically motivated bad faith actors like Stalin and Mao. Here's a link to it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rvhcQxKsa0 There's a YouTuber named Vaush who claims to be a pure socialist. He's been on both David Pakman and Kyle Kulinski. When they asked him about things like property ownership and business ownership he was pretty open but from my view also naively ignorant of how people basically operate in large modern societies. Like a few others his ideas might work in small isolated communities where group survival takes precedence over personal accumulation of assets, but in modern developed societies those ideas just don't work.
2
@Taxthechurch Yeah I'd agree with that but he's one of the very few who claims to be a pure or fundamental socialist who you can hear speak or give opinions. There's plenty of lefty YouTube channels but very few who claim to be what he claims to be. The couple of times I saw him in discussions he came across as one of those "tear it all to the ground and start again" types. There's a fair amount of really pretentious nonsense from places like the WEF. They had their "Great Reset" which included the line "You'll own nothing and be happy" and that's straight fundamental socialist ideology. They couldn't tear that down quick enough once people pointed it out. Don't forget the WEF is actually a private corporation owned by a German Industrialist Billionaire. Most of the people who go to Davos each year go there in their private jets. They have these very lefty social justice type talks every year. I recently watched the panel from 2019 where Ruter Bregman called them out. Here's a famous excerpt you might have seen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0 You can find the whole panel discussion which is about an hour and there's so much pretentiousness hot air and self righteousness its depressing to watch. The only thing that's worth watching it for is to see Rutger unload on them.
1
@puppetmaster706 Why don't you go and take a giant dose of REALITY or just as simple F⋃CK OFF. At the time he was famous and selling his books on rules and more rules WAS BEFORE he melted his brain on those drugs. He might have started on them earlier but he hadn't lost his brain at that stage. Damn fanboys like you who can't handle reality make the world the mess it is.
1