Comments by "Michael Mappin" (@michaelmappin1830) on "The Rational National"
channel.
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Comparing the Iraq War to what Putin is doing in the Ukraine? Wow! I actually used to have a lot of respect for this channel. Not anymore.
What if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in Canada along the American Border? What if they had those weapons in Cuba and Mexico? What if Iraq was funding terrorist organizations within Canada, Cuba and Mexico, getting them to kill innocent American civilians, a total of 14000, along with 150 innocent children? What if America kept trying to negotiate for peaceful resolution for 8 years only existing peace agreements violated? Yeah, I think that might be a pretty good pretext to actually take military action. Foreign policy experts along with International lawyers have been warning us for eight years that eventually Putin would be forced to take military action if we continue doing what we're doing in the Ukraine. But sure, let's just compare Ukraine to Iraq.
▪ Noam Chomsky:
"In 2014, a Russia-supported government in Ukraine was forcefully removed from power by a coup supported by the U.S. and replaced by a U.S. and European-backed government. It was a development that brought closer to war the two main antagonists of the Cold War era, as Moscow regards both U.S. and European involvement in Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) continued eastward expansion as part of a well-orchestrated strategy to encircle Russia.
The strategy of encirclement is indeed as old as NATO itself, and this is the reason why Russian President Vladimir Putin issued recently a list of demands to the U.S. and NATO with regard to their actions in Ukraine and even parts of the former Soviet space. In the meantime, senior-level Russian officials have gone even further by warning of military response if NATO continues to ignore Moscow’s security concerns. The Russia-Ukraine conflict is a solvable problem, but one wonders if the U.S. will remain dedicated to a 'zombie policy' that could produce potentially awful consequences in the event of a diplomatic failure.
There’s more to add, of course. What happened in 2014, whatever one thinks of it, amounted to a coup with U.S. support that replaced the Russia-oriented government by a Western-oriented one. That led Russia to annex Crimea, mainly to protect its sole warm water port and naval base, and apparently with the agreement of a considerable majority of the Crimean population. There’s extensive scholarship on the complexities, particularly Richard Sakwa’s Frontline Ukraine and more recent work."
▪ "... NATO powers have lately relied on their bogus legal doctrine of “responsibility to protect” that they invented after the fact to try to justify their aggression against Yugoslavia. No such doctrine exists in international law, but they claim the right to use it nevertheless.
It applies, according to them, when a military action is justified, though illegal, “for legitimate humanitarian reasons.’ They were warned that this false doctrine could be turned against them. Russia has not referred to it at all, but if NATO can rely on it for their wars of aggression, then surely Russia can rely on it to justify their military action to defend the Donbass, and themselves.
When one takes account of all the factors that governed the Russian decision to send its forces into Ukraine it is clear that in law they had the legal right to do so whereas the United States continues its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Syria to this day and the NATO media powers and governments say nothing, because they are all complicit in those invasions.
If the United States and the NATO alliance had complied with international law in the first place as set out in the UN Charter, the world would not be in this mess. They caused this, not Russia. The responsibility is entirely theirs and they will be judged for it."
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds.
▪ The United States formed NATO in 1949 with 11 countries in its own interest and with the aim of destroying the communist bloc. Today, NATO is engaged in creating terrorism in more than 30 countries around the world. The United States and NATO have opened shops around democracy and destroyed countless countries, large and small. They are not friends of anyone. They are bigots.
Why was NATO not dismissed in 1991 when the Warsaw Pact was disbanded? The USSR, the CIA's deep conspiracy, was broken into pieces and then those pieces were gradually incorporated into NATO, lastly Ukraine. Attempts by NATO to destroy or pressure Russia, which is surrounded by NATO, are never acceptable. A war organization called NATO should be disbanded immediately. Then the world will return to balance. Get rid of NATO and save the world from nuclear annihilation.
▪ Former Top Pentagon advisor Col. Doug MacGregor on Russia Ukraine war
https://youtu.be/NFngc_8RiVc
2
-
Socialism has nothing to do with giving power the one person. Socialism is the opposite. It's a bottom-up system. That's why it's not prone to corruption. Capitalism is prone to corruption because it's a top-down system. It's an undemocratic hierarchical system that concentrates power and wealth at the top of the Apex. Those at the bottom are kept in the state of dependency and have virtually no control over their workplace environment.
In regards to Venezuela, you're engaging in extreme over-simplification and black and white thinking. United States has been at war with Venezuela for almost 19 years! Why don't you check out the National Security archive. Second, Venezuela is a capitalist country. The capitalist still have control. Something like 80% of industry is in the private sector, as with Healthcare and employment. the workers do not own and control their own labour and resources. So how can you call this Democratic socialism? :-) Democratic socialism is democratic! One worker gets one vote. That's democratic. Under capitalism the number of votes is determined by the number of shares you control. If you can afford a million shares, then you get a million votes! That's the opposite of democratic. That's autocratic! that's why when the shareholders vote to cut safety standards and poison the water supply, as we saw in Flint Michigan, they have the power to do it. the workers are helpless. when they voted to move production to China, again, the workers were left destitute! and that's why Democratic systems are far Superior to top-down dictatorships. and here you are, arguing in favour of plutocracy, while trying to convince people that Fighting For Freedom will lead to Armageddon!
2
-
1
-
1
-
@BKHockeyTalk , of course there are a lot of people that make 6 figure incomes at capitalist companies. But that doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of people don't make enough money to even support a family on a single income. The point is assembly line workers can never make $70,000 at a capitals company.
the point is, why throw away years and years of your life making money for someone else when you can actually keep all of the money that your labour produces?
Alvarado Street Bakery
100% Worker Owned!
The company ships out 40,000 loaves of bread a day, the average worker earns between $65,000 and $70,000 a year, and the ratio of executive to worker compensation is less than 3 to 1. At a capitalist company that ratio can be as high as 750 to 1!
“They're large and successful, they're one of the case studies we point to and that people study,” said Melissa Hoover, executive director of the U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives. The San Francisco-based industry group counts some of the country's largest cooperatives.
Website:
https://www.alvaradostreetbakery.com/
video:
https://youtu.be/-VdbFzwe8fQ
1
-
1
-
@BKHockeyTalk , what does socialism in worker cooperatives have to do with equal outcome? yes, some people have upward Mobility at companies. Most do not. But that is completely beside the point. The point is, do you want to keep all the money that your labour produces or do you want lose years of your life making money for someone else. And yes, living off of the labour of other people is parasitical. Maybe you have a different word for it.
and like I said, most people choose capitalism out of ignorance. do you know how much is spent on propaganda annually? If it wasn't for propaganda, capitalism probably would have disappeared 50 years ago. Capitalism is one of the most wasteful and destructive systems ever devised. There are some billionaires out there accumulating several million dollars per hour just from their Capital Holdings. Where do you think that money comes from? That serves to reduce purchasing power. why do you think we still have a 40-hour work week? it's because all increases in productivity go to the owners of capital. just like with a dairy cow, if you give that cow bovine growth hormone to double milk production, the milk goes to the farmer. Likewise, if you're an employee at a capital company, it doesn't matter if you make a million dollars worth of bread. Each loaf of bread you make belongs to someone else.
Anyway, again, capitalism is maintained largely in part due to propaganda. initially, people resisted the conversion to capitalism with every fibre of their being. it took many years of social conditioning to get people to accept capitalism without question.
Capitalist propaganda since 1945:
• Part 1: http://youtu.be/EIk6-4KosE0
• Part 2: http://youtu.be/QY8i4JXdpxs
• Part 3: http://youtu.be/fUOqrxrrY0k
• Part 4: http://youtu.be/ZQuPMRnInoY
• Part 5: http://youtu.be/ao0P7_P22BM
• Part 6: http://youtu.be/3433t89k4LY
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kurorahk ,
Scott Ritter on Russian Offensive
https://youtu.be/3GkmdCaBECs
Facts are facts: Till 1990: NATO had 16 members
1991: Collapse of the USSR
Russia: Don't expand further
America: Okay we will not expand (verbally,
not written)
1999: Poland, Hungary and Czech republic joined NATO
Russia: But you said you won't expand!
America: Where is the written document, so Jack off!
2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia joined NATO
Russia: But you said you won't expand!
America: Where is the written document, so jack off
2009: Albania and Croatia joined NATO
Russia: But you said you won't expand!
America: Where is the written document, so jack off
2014: CIA funded Coup de ta to overthrow the legal government of Ukraine and install a Pro Western US puppet government
2017: Montenegro and North Macedonia joined NATO
Russia: But you said you won't expand!
America: Where is the written document, so jack off
2021: US proposal for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and
Ukraine to join NATO
Russia: Enough is enough, you are betraying us ever since 1990s, if we allow you, you will deploy missiles on our borders.
Western World: Russia is so aggressive, they are evil, they don't think about humanity, Russia is expanding. Putin is being unreasonable......
Hypocrite Western world!!!!!
Imagine if Canada and Mexico joined a military alliance with Russia and deployed missiles on its borders?! The US will declare war for own security.
Where was the West and the so called free world’s morality for what the US did to
secular regimes in Iraq, Afganistan ,Libya?
They turned a blind eye and destroyed these Middle Eastern countries all while funding terrorism and supporting Wahabbi Extremist theocracies in Saudi Arabia and the gulf states which sponsor terrorists around the world.
This is not the 1980’s
People have eye and ears, the world has had enough of Western imperialism and Unipolar control over the rest of the world.
It’s about time the Western Hemisphere wakes up from its colonial wet dream of controlling the world and dictating who can and cannot be free.
Russia 🇷🇺 & China 🇨🇳 along with rest of the world should come together to form a balance of power to create a Multipolar World.
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
-
@monkeystank5241 , I did answer your question! Every country that attempted to go socialist was overthrown! For example, the USSR! In 1917 United States, Canada, Britain and Japan sent troops into Russia to stop the workers from achieving their goals! And that's why and how Stalin achieve power! Just since 1945 the United States has bombed over 30 countries. They have attempted to assassinate the leaders of forty countries. Then you have Afghanistan, chili, excetera, excetera. What happened to the Paris commune? That was overthrown!
Venezuela is not socialist. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? something like 80% of the Venezuelan economy and employment is in the private sector! That makes them capitalist! They have a capitalist economy. the United States has been at War with Venezuela for almost 19 years! Their economic problems are largely due to us imperialism! That is a fact! so why in the hell would you pick the least socialist country as an example? if you're going to start referring mixed capitalist economy is as socialism, then you shouldn't be pointing at Venezuela, you should be pointing at Country such as Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Etc.
The USSR was not socialist or communist. the state was in control of capital. when the state is in control of capital, that's what we refer to as state capitalism. calling them socialist or communist would be like calling a meat eater a vegan. Just because Stalin or Hitler call themselves socialists, that doesn't mean they actually are! Words have meaning!
in the USSR and China, did the workers own and control their own resources and labour? did they have a democracy? No! So how can you possibly be calling these places socialist? And another thing, the USSR did not collapse because of their economic system. the country was forced into bankruptcy because they couldn't afford the military spending required to maintain adequate defense against the threat of the United States. Russia did not want to spend most of their money building nuclear bombs and other such weapons on defense! They couldn't afford it. United States with constantly threaten their country, flying bombers into their airspace, Etc. If USSR hadn't have built a massive military and nuclear defense, the United States would have bombed them right back to the Stone Age like they did with Iraq! I'm sure that you're aware at least of that much! So don't tell me that it was their economic system, because that's not true. if you're unaware of these facts, then I suggest you get yourself a library card and do some research.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@monkeystank5241 , socialism evolve out of the French Revolution. In the French Parliament you had people that sat on the left of the building and people that sat on the right. Those sat on the left were against hierarchy. Those that sat on the right where supporters of hierarchy. Socialism evolved from there. It falls on the left side of the political Spectrum along with anarchism. National socialism, which is a form of fascism, falls on the right side of the political Spectrum. It is the ultimate form of hierarchy. The USSR was not socialist. A socialist hierarchy would be a contradiction in terms. Stalin was a dictator. You can't have a socialist or communist dictator. That would be like having a non-hierarchical monarchy. Monarchies are another form of hierarchy. Hierarchy is what the Socialists and anarchists are against! again, I can sit here and eat meat and call myself a vegan at the same time! But by doing so, I'd be a hypocrite, because those are antithetical terms.
under the Communist system there is no hierarchy, no state, no classes, and no money! Both China and the USSR used money as a tool for social organization. that fact alone disqualifies them from being communist.
socialism and communism are not top down systems. They are bottom up systems. The exact opposite. And that is why they're on the opposite ends of the political Spectrum.
any discussion of fascism must emphasize 7 basic concepts that are found in all fascists.
Irrationalism,
social Darwinism,
nationalism,
the state,
the principle of leadership,
racism,
the corporate economy.
the first two concepts are best seen as basic themes that are rarely explicitly stated but which are part of the other four. All seven of these concepts are intimately interrelated, they cannot be separated from the others. however, it is necessary the analyze them separately to understand them.
irrationalism: the basic assumption is that man is not a rational being. He need not be reasoned with and cannot be reasoned with, he can only be led and manipulated.
social Darwinism: it is the name generally given to social theories that view Life as a struggle for survival within each species as well as between species. In Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species by means of natural selection 1859, there is found the statement that life evolves through a struggle for survival between the species. fascists / National socialists applied this idea to their theories of nationalism and race! socialism, on the other hand is Against Racism and class division. the idea is that we are all Brothers and Sisters of the world. Fascism is the exact opposite! They believe that the superior race will eventually dominate, eradicating everyone else, without exception!
Nationalism: it is the most important aspect of national socialism / fascism. all the members of society are supposed to support the state above anything else. an individual is first and foremost a member of the nation to which he gives all of his loyalty, his dedication, and his love.
@Sonny Redlinger , I'm not going to go over the next three elements. Instead I'm going to skip to the final part of the ideology which is the most difficult to understand, The corporate economy. I'll do that later, when I have time. But basically, fascism and capitalism are connected. Socialism, on the other hand, is anti-capitalist. Again, that's why socialism is on the left and both capitalism and fascism are on the far right of the political Spectrum. As capitalism moves further to the right, it eventually transitions into fascism! Fascism is basically late-stage capitalism. Socialism is moving in the opposite direction, toward communism. Again, this is not my opinion. This is well-documented fact, dating back to the French Revolution. Claiming otherwise is both a-historical and empirically false.
1