Comments by "Kamper Foelie" (@TheKamperfoelie) on "Mark Felton Productions"
channel.
-
20
-
15
-
12
-
9
-
9
-
Bogey I disagree with you, now I am a ‘silencer of truths?’
Alas, I wish I was young. Naive? With women maybe, but politics? Nah. Dont trust anyone gets you the farthest. But enough about me, lets stick to the facts. I’m calling what you say a bit conspiracy-minded because it is polarized. You probably have the idea that there are forces conspiring on a grand scale and controlling the media bla bla. Which is a mind trap. Everything you see then fits into this scheme. But it would also make to fit if you thought 180 degrees otherwise.
It’s much simpler than that. As Occam’s razor defines. There is just life going on. Everything you see can be explained by human behavior. Fear, opportunism, greed, etc. No need for conspiracies. I would call anyone thinking in grand conspiracies naive, in the sense that they are satisfied with ‘forces being at work’ being the explanation for things that happen in the world.
Doesnt mean there isnt some scheming. The von Ribbentrop pact being one. The last invasion of Iraq is a clear one. Oil fields were divided before they went in. But that is just human nature with some truly rotten people in the wrong places. But that nonsens about media being communist, cmon. Sure, Rupert murdoch is communist, lol.
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@ТимофейКузьмин-у1ь so it is obvious that Russia attacks Finland in order to take more buffer land for Leningrad? As it is obvious for Russia/USSR to occupy Poland, not only in 1939, but also in the centuries before 1918? And there are countless other examples: the Baltic states, Ukraine, Bessarabia, the caucasus, the asian central states, hell, even Manchuria. Look, theres a word for it, it’s called Empire, or Imperialism, or just doing what you damn well please, not caring what the occupied cultures think about it. Russia, even in the time of the USSR has been nothing more or less than an Empire, grabbing when they could.
Theres nothing unique in that, there have been several other european empires, to name the first. A particular grim card the Russian people got dealt relatively recently was the nazi Third Reich invading them, an empire itself however briefly. All of Europe and a good deal of the rest of the world was in that same card game though, and no one got good cards there, perhaps excluding the US, since it upgraded them instantly to leading world power.
But that doesnt mean that Russia/USSR gets some sort of different position in the fact that governing other cultures/people or just simply destroying them by decimation and assimilation, is then felt as, oh well, it’s the Russians, we dont mind being subjugated/assimilated. Nobody likes their freedom let alone their life to be taken away thusly. The fact that a lot of russians simply regard the Ukraine, Belorussia and probably Poland and the baltic states for example as rightfully part of Grand Russia illustrates how their mind works in this respect.
So dont come crying well the Poles attacked Russia once too and you shouldnt be remembering Katyn. Of course Russia was invaded, and by hosts of others during the times. But that still makes that Katyn was what it was, an atrocity in a time of atrocities. Perpetrated by Stalin and his people. Who were pigs, not unlike the Nazis. Perhaps it was a time of pigs, more than most times at least.
So dont come howling that we all need to not remember Katyn because Poles also attacked Russia one or two times. Because that is what you are doing. We watchers of Mark Felton love history, we dont need the NKVD to come and spread their propaganda.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
yohannbiimu well, that’s one way to view things, that’s for certain. You present socialism as a slipperly slope that ends up in a repressive regime. Frankly, that’s not true. As far as i know, all western Europe countries have and have had socialist parties (actually i think the whole of the western world apart from the US) of which most if not all have at some point have governed due to election victories. In many cases on their own, not in a coalition. And some for extended times. In the netherlands, socialist parties have been part of government for perhaps half the time since the 2nd world war. In scandinavia as well. Labour has gorverned in the UK. All examples of pretty civilized societies where socialism is simply a part of the political landscape (conservatives/liberals, socialists, green parties, nationalists/populists). A power among other powers.
Off course the pure socialistic ideal is an ideal. Yes. The same is true for any movement. But it is absurd to equate socialism (the movement/ideal) to an inevitable slide into a totalitarian regime. Total nonsense. There isnt any proof for that. The ussr, China, north korea, all the soviet satellite states, cuba, so called socialist states in south america, they are all simply dictatorships, most if not all of them brought about by a coup. There was nothing democratic in the forging of them.
The (idealistic) influence of socialism, where socialism came to power in true democracies, has not in any case brought about a totalitarian regime.
You might be brainwashed that everything that is not pure capitalism or free market is going to end up totalitarian, it is just not true. In fact, take a good long look at pure unbridled capitalism and tell me if that isn’t totalitarian in nature. Social securities are partly responsible for the high living standards in western european countries. In fact the average happiness is largest in scandinavian countries and for example the netherlands. All countries where socialist movement has been part of power, and has had a big impact on society.
2
-
John Turley well there are different kind of socialism, or better, the word socialism is used in different ways. You have socialism as in for example the soviet/maoistic/cuban sort. Thats indeed where everything is more or less state owned/governed. In europe we actually call that communism, though even that does not do it justice. True communism would supposed to be a workers paradise, where everyone is paid the same and power is shared through democracy. It is obvious that soviet/maoism/north Korea etc have thoroughly perverted that. These were/are in fact oligarchies and enormous repressive police states. Dictatorships where the people have no power at all.
Americans have been using the word socialism to adress this kind of state forms, however elsewhere, for example in europe and south america the term socialism is used to describe left wing politics and movements. True, they are opposite what you could call capitalism and free market ideology, but also not at all nationalistic. However, the socialism in europe (for example called, socialist democrats) is more a moderation an limitless free market ideology, they stand for ideologies where the poor and without work are supported, the rich are actually taxed (as well as everyone, but in more succesfull cases a bit more) and free market is a bit reigned in. Think Social securities like public health care, affordable housing, an attempt at equal opportunities in areas as schooling etc.
The fact that aforementioned states as the ussr for example call themselves socialist does not mean they’re actually socialist, and the same is true for nazi germany. It does indeed just sounds good, ‘all oppressed workers rally on me!’. At the time the nazi’s where vying for power, the world was in pretty big turmoil politically speaking. Great upheaval where monarchies toppled and new ways to keep functioning/govern where finding its way. Socialism arose as one of many movements, but again, it is perverted by the states which put it in their name. You can actually be pretty sure that if a country calls itself ‘democratic’ or ‘socialistic’, it is most certainly not that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1