Youtube comments of Kamper Foelie (@TheKamperfoelie).
-
266
-
171
-
89
-
62
-
40
-
30
-
28
-
23
-
20
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
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
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
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
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@owabowa I’m not talking about biology, that would be silly. Capitalism was developed naturally, it is something that existed before it was written about. It served a purpose, it evolved naturally. Marxism and its interpretations is the overthrowing of the order, seizing the means of production (or are you saying that Marx didn’t say that?) and create a workers parad.. well, actually a top down state that directs everything from above. And we just hope it works? Because well, without any proof of it working, but what the hell, and don’t mind all the dead people. And in the process, everything is ripped apart, the fabric of society that evolved naturally, the economy, the free market, freedoms and to be replaced with something that is completely synthetic. And in the process invite tyranny.
Whether that is on the level of a communist state or in your words ‘a system of analysis bla bla’, which is a total cop out of course, because god forbid lets not REALLY LOOK at where marxism was applied, it remains total, intellectual, bullshit. It doesn’t work, it looks at things in a way that does not contribute to anything that actually constitute progress, just destruction of what is. But just on the safe side for you, what is the ‘method of analysis bla bla bla that actually has provided something that is usefull and does not fail completely the moment it is actually implemented? Actually produces something beautiful?
Marxism isnt a method bla bla bla, it is a intellectual mind excercise, thought up by a drunk who didnt work more than a few months to support his family, but dreamt up the religion of the jealous, and the church of intellectuals, who simply take the place of priests telling us what they dreamt up (without any sort of evidence) is the way to the promised land (which no one has even seen before, and of course, doesn’t exist), but provides a means for those ‘intellectuals’ to thrive and live of the back of others.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@geerttermeer3358 not saying you don’t have a point, because you do. Except, this comes from a mindset that excludes other possibilities. You say we have to make a transition to a clean economy, and you probably say ‘we have to let immigrants in, if not because of humanitarian point of view, then because of demographics’. But this ‘we have to’ is disputable, and that is exactly the point. It is the same as the flyover states in the US, they feel decisions are made over their heads. You say there is no alternative. Well actually there are, there always are. You are just convinced this is the rational, and only way right way to go. And, because of that, you are probably of the opinion that everyone that wants something else is, well, deluded or stupid.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@owabowa you can run around and putting up fallacies all you want, talking about ‘my definition of work’ all you want, but the fact remains, Marx didn’t have a particular ‘insight in working or how it felt to be a worker’ since the man was allergic to work and did everything he could to NOT have a job that could support his family. Instead he leached off his family. He didn’t have ‘work habits’, he simply detested working, and wrote his rumblings imagining a world where he didn’t have to work.
I can tell you are a believer, in disregard of the failings of his theories, if you can call them that. Substance eh? What substance does Marx bring to the table? Wholesale death and misery, a ‘classless world’ huh? And as a true Marxist, of course you try to shout and bully people into silence by any means possible, through shaming and saying they lack substance, Mao would have been so proud of you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Scheldt estuary was taken, but at a high cost, and still after 2 months, while the western Allies were needing Antwerps port useable asap. Like, today. Fuel among others was taken in by Mulberry and the small part of French Normandy and Brittany ports that were usable, then driven by trucks all the way through northern France and Belgium. There was only supply enough for a single army to do a decent offensive operation.
So market garden is considered a loss because it didn’t deliver, whatever the reasoning afterwards. Market Garden even DELAYED the clearing of the Scheldt estuary, because it got prioritized over the Scheldt, while little to show for.
Don’t get me wrong, operational successes were sometimes spectacular, and certainly heroic, but Arnhem was just heroic, it was ultimately not taken. So there was no bridge over the Rhine, and no push to either the IJsselmeer (it was no longer the Zuiderzee at that time) to cut off supplies to the 15th Army defending western Holland, to facilitate an easier attack on the Zeeland Isles and peninsulas, gaining the use of the bulk port of Antwerp, or even Rotterdam.
In every which way you look at it, Market Garden took the supplies bulk at the time, delaying everything else. It then did not deliver on anything called decisive. It did not outflank the Siegfried line, it gave no easier route than the Hurtgen Forest or the Siegfried line into Germany. It did not even free Holland apart from the provinces below the Rhine. The river delta of this area is low lying, wet ground, often sodden. Even if you get across the Rhine, it is not ideal ground to conduct a major offensive from using armored units, or even motorized, making having to cross the Rhine in the Netherlands the least desirable option. Apart from that, in the area east of Nijmegen! Next to the Groesbeek Heights lies the Reichswald and even more Rhine river. Not ideal.
It makes no sense to prioritize an operation that does not deliver either an easier or swifter move into Germany itself (if not the Ruhr or Berlin, hell, even Hamburg would be nice), does not really speed up the use of Antwerp (surely it will have had an effect on 15 th army effectiveness, but it delayed the Battle of the Scheldt, and according to some, maybe many historians, made the battle considerably costlier and longer).
Market Garden took place roughly 3 months after the initial landing in Normandy. After the Falaise pocket (21th aug) Germans were in full retreat.
Market Garden gave the Germans a few extra weeks to prepare the defense of the Scheldt estuary.
Imagine what an airborne division may have accomplished if it was used there. No more insane than dropping them at Oosterbeek.
Freeing Holland was not a real goal, but if it was it was limited to the lower provinces. Tik mentions here that if 15 th Army was cut of, north eastern netherlands was still occupied. BUT, as with the southern provinces, the northeast is largely agricultural and less populated than the west. So the Hongerwinter would have had a far smaller impact, if western holland (actually the provinces of North and South Holland, Zeeland and Utrecht) had been freed.
I think the real sting in this story is the question as follows: why do commanders at that level disagree, or even be ambiguous about what the aim of this operation was? Following Falaise things were fluid, not solidified as much as a few weeks later when the Germans were better dug in and ready. So making a gamble was reasonable, logical, worth a shot. A gamble was made, and it failed. Yes it took ground (thankfully. My parents were born in 1944 and 1945, in the Netherlands, below the Rhine. So already free, no Hongerwinter for them), but did not deliver a decisive push for considerable losses and delays in vital alternatives.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@owabowa how would you know? I haven’t found anything useful, so I’m asking what you find useful, and the only thing you come up with is ‘a method of bla bla’, and nothing about class, equality, the abolishment of private property, the seizing of the means of production, so I’m sure YOU haven’t read him. But I understand why as a Marxist devotee you won’t go into discussion about that, and instead resort to nonsense, because that is the only area you feel comfortable discussing anything, since you won’t need to actually talk about anything real. Because in the real, everything Marxists is a catastrophe.
Every ‘intellectual’ spouting Marxists or derivative stuff is someone who wants to de part of an elite warding over everybody else, using moral and virtue as to hold people in their place. Just like the priests of old, and just like Marx wanted to keep drinking and not work, but wanted other people to spontaneously pop up at places that needed work.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bugzyhardrada3168 nu kan ik natuurlijk elke quote verzinnen en bij elke naam zetten die ik zou willen, zeker als het compleet onbekende personen zijn, en geen haan die ernaar kraait. Maar buiten dat, hoe moeten deze fringe mensen het voor elkaar krijgen? Het zijn niet israeliers die islamiieten naar europa ‘brengen’ of ‘halen’. Dat zijn europese politici, ngo’s en mensensmokkelaars (en recentelijk Loekachenko en Poetin ff).
Maar het zou een geslepen manier zijn van mensen met een agenda om uitgerekend joden de schuld te geven van dat Islamieten naar Europa komen. Daarbij, wat zou hier het motief van moeten zijn? Israeliers die zo juist de steun van Europa aan Israel doen verwateren, en welke Israelier zou een Islamitisch Europa willen?
Dus kerel, nee, het heeft ondanks je quotes, van nobodies, geen enkele reet met joden te maken. No motive, no opportunity and no murder weapon. Nu opdonderen met je troep.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@owabowa so, according to you, marxism cannot be criticized, even by the world events and peoples actions inspired by marxism. There cannot be identified where marxism has made differences, for better pr for worse. So according to you, there can then also be no proof of it working for the better, or for the worse. Then what is the use of it? And what is it then, according to you, anything else than a mumbo jumbo ‘intellectual’ nonsense, that has moved into the indistinguishable? Very simple, because in the real world, it only brings catastrophe. That’s why it’s a ‘method for bla bla’, because of it is spoken of in concrete terms, it’s humanities worst construct.
Yes, capitalism evolved naturally, in the world, out of a wish to share risk. Marxism is a thought out set of schemes to well, ‘seize the means of production’ among others. or do you claim Marx didn’t write that? Because you can talk all you want about thesis and anthesis makes synthesis, bla bla, but it does the same thing in society as the hugely impactfull catastrophes that were inspired by Marxism.
Oh no, Marxism can’t be criticized, because bla bla method.
1
-
@owabowa do you know what went on in 20th century soviet union, china, cambodja, north korea, cuba? You know, all those fun places to be back then, the places were the dregs of humanity thought, well lets give these Marx theories a try? And how succesful they were? Capitalism, free markets, that’s what people evolved doing quite naturally. And it works. Marxism doesn’t. It never did any society good, it just opened the gates of hell. So what are you on about Adam smith while you just have to see the distorted madhouse that was the soviet union, or china, or cambodja. O capitalism so badd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1