Comments by "" (@SG-js2qn) on "Ryan Chapman" channel.

  1. Ryan, I appreciate that you are educating yourself, and doing your own research, which is GREAT. But you are missing out if you think you don't need to research further back than the 60s. We're still going through everything that was present with the Wilson administration, and the French Revolution is still HUGE in the world. The French Revolution is where the terms left and right were were born, and they have been misunderstood ever since ... and that's on purpose. The French Revolution is a period of revolution, the Reign of Terror, and empire. This same pattern is followed repeatedly, in the Russian Revolution, WW2 era Germany, Mao's revolution, and even in Castro's revolution. Modern liberals subscribe to Bentham's philosophy, and he was from the French Revolution era. Marx's philosophies were based on the French Revolution philosophies. All of this led to Progressivism, which was the key philosophy of the Wilson administration. Progressivism is the left and it is the revolution. The "right wing" is simply whoever is not sufficiently on board with the revolution. ("If you're not with us, you're against us.")
    54
  2. IDK if this series of arguments makes substantial sense, though the groundwork of the preface is painstakingly logical. Fascism defined this way seems to be little more than nationalism, and it seems like the US and UK would be examples that could fit as fascist, with patriotic people being fascists. I don't think the definitions in play here use the key defining points. But that may be the author's intention, as he seems solidly Progressive.
    3
  3. The news has had bias and propaganda since the French Revolution / Reign of Terror. In the US, the media grew powerful in the late 1800s, with the examples of Hearst and Pulitzer. In the early 1900s, the federal gov't embraced propaganda and censorship, and first began to limit the right to free speech. Radio and TV, added to newspaper, allowed for more owners and more voices, thus a bit more democracy. This was lost during the Clinton administration, when the decision was made to allow news corporations to consolidate down to just six owners. This policy was advantageous for the Chinese Communist Party, which began to influence the media, in addition to businesses and gov't officials at all levels. China's goal to make the west destroy itself. This goal goes back to the Fifties and Sixties. Originally the USSR was the stronger power, but the CCP rose as the USSR fell. Now China is quietly doing what the USSR couldn't do.
    1
  4.  @locobob  I agree the whole west is headed toward fascism / socialism. But it's not because of nationalism or patriotism, or capitalism. It's because of the incessant greed of a few that wishes to take the rest of the population and use them as a cash crop, not treating them as fellows in a community.
    1
  5.  @michaelcriger6359  Of course everything tends to have an antecedent. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to take everything back to the big bang. It's perfectly fine to study the English Civil War. The English Civil War had a far greater effect on the American Revolution than it did on the French Revolution. The French Revolution is the problematic one, with echoes in all the Marxist revolutions. The concept of LEFT and RIGHT, used to divide people today, comes from the French Revolution, and Progressive ideology - with its use of phony science for political gain - is part of the Age of Enlightenment. If you want to understand what's going on today, the French Revolution is the pivotal moment to look at. The French Revolution promised a utopia and delivered a dystopia. That is a key characteristic. Go ahead and disagree if you want. I'm not going to try to convince you of anything.
    1
  6.  @marcuspi999  Obviously you don't know enough about the French Revolution, so you think it is a very indirect influence, like the influence of hunter-gatherers of which we know nothing. The French Revolution is a DIRECT influence, like the seed that grows a tree.
    1
  7.  @marcuspi999  Oh, okay. That's cool. :) My impression is that In America they followed a sort of Christian Progressivism, putting God and the gifted rights of men before the state. This was the tradition from the start of the nation till about Teddy Roosevelt. What was growing in Europe, and with American elites who looked to Europe, was the idea of Progressivism that dropped Christian morality and spirituality in favor of the Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham. Bentham was a British contemporary of the French Revolution, and sort of helped translate that political movement into British and colonial society. This Utilitarian Progressivism we can see in modern figures like Bill Maher, for instance, with the emphasis on hedonism and pseudo-science, including atheism. We can see it as a guiding principle for the Communist revolutions, and the pseudo-scientific dystopias of writers Orwell and Huxley. With Christian Progressivism ending with Teddy Roosevelt, Utilitarian Progressivism came in with Woodrow Wilson, and it had a huge effect, causing a reworking of the US federal relationship with the people, and influencing the next generation in Europe, which took its cues from Wilson. (Wilson was more popular abroad than in the US.) The people of the US are currently divided between the two principles.
    1
  8. Prior to 2014, the Russians were running Ukraine as a corrupt client state. They were abusing the Ukrainians and trying to rob them of all their treasure. What happened in 2014, or a little earlier? Large natural gas fields were discovered. Most people don't know this, but Europe is DESPERATE for energy, importing more than 50% of the energy they need. So when natgas was discovered in Ukraine, finally Ukraine had the possibility of earning good money and getting out from under Russia's abusive thumb. So Ukraine and the west created a coup to evict the Russian kleptocrat who was running / ruining the country. Putin's response to this was to mount an invasion and steal back the specific lands that had the natgas reserves. That was all of Ukraine that he wanted: the gas. He had no use for the regular people, whom he'd already impoverished. As happened before in Afghanistan and in Syria, the west mobilized, armed, and trained fighters to enter into the lands Putin stole from Ukraine, and they acted as terrorists or freedom fighters, depending on your point of view. Putin wants to control and profit from the Ukrainian gas reserves, and he doesn't want Europe to get them. So he set up a plan by which he would use elite capture - bribes - to get Europeans to cut back on their own energy production in favor of Russian energy sources. Once the US and Russia were dependent on Russian oil, gas, and coal, they waited till winter ... the time of greatest dependency for Europe. And that's when they invaded Ukraine, with the goal of solidifying Russian control of the gas fields. This is 100% what's going on. All the stuff in the media is smoke.
    1