Comments by "Golag Is watching you" (@golagiswatchingyou2966) on "CaspianReport" channel.

  1. 318
  2. 258
  3. 182
  4. 181
  5. 122
  6. 101
  7. when we look at these maps there is a diffrent response to diffrent people, lets try and analise them and try to predict their outcomes long term the humanist might see this and say ''look at how many people there are, humans are more interconnected, more wide spread and more developed than ever before, how wonderfull'' the enviromentalist might see this and say ''look at how many people there exist, how can the enviroment deal and sustain such people? how horrible what can we do to prevent long term damage to nature?'' the globalist might see this and say ''look at how far we have gotten as a species, all this interconnected and trade relations must be good for humanity and human civilization overal'' the nationalist might see this and say ''look how many people exist in the world, who knows when massive waves of migrants and refugees may come to our shores if they can no longer sustain this growth, we must defend what's ours no matter what'' all these viewpoints in my opinion have some merrit and truth to them, some people like it, some people hate it, some people view it as progress, others as evil, some as unsustainable but in all cases it seems we as a species have no controle over how civilization develops, we can't stop growing, we can't stop reproducing and those that don't reproduce will find themselves being replaced or swarmed by those that do, such is the way of nature and human behavior. thus I ask you what will become of us in this dynamic? what future awaits us? who is right? who is wrong? do you disagree on moral grounds? pragmatic grounds? or ideologicaly grounds? is this good or bad? idk but I don't think the outcome will be as great as some people think, nor as evil as some imagine.
    69
  8. 62
  9. 59
  10. 56
  11. 47
  12. 37
  13. 34
  14. 32
  15. 32
  16. 32
  17. 28
  18. 26
  19. 25
  20. 24
  21. 23
  22. 23
  23. 23
  24. 22
  25. 18
  26. 18
  27. 17
  28. 17
  29. 17
  30. 16
  31. 16
  32. 16
  33. 15
  34. 14
  35. 13
  36. 12
  37. 12
  38. 12
  39. 12
  40. 12
  41. 11
  42. 11
  43. 11
  44. 11
  45. 11
  46. 11
  47. 10
  48. 10
  49. 10
  50. 10
  51. 10
  52. 10
  53. 10
  54. 10
  55. 9
  56. 9
  57. 9
  58. 9
  59. 8
  60. 8
  61. 8
  62. 8
  63. 7
  64. 7
  65. 7
  66. 7
  67. 7
  68. 7
  69. 7
  70. 7
  71. 7
  72. Looking at Turkey one could say it's an expanding power, trying to flex it's military industrial ability and trying to dominate the region it is involved with like a true great power in the region. I however see Turkey today as a Tragity, a nation with a huge potential and seeing it wasted on it's current leadership, it's hollow focus on regional conflicts and stagnating economic potential because of it's autocratic leadership. Turkey not so long ago was becoming closer to the western world, towards the EU and was focusing a lot on it's economic development, Turkey unlike most of the middle east is a democracy and a liberal one at that, it's growing population and strong military could have been a great pillar both for itself, NATO and the EU long term, now? most of Europe sees Turkey as a threat, much like the Ottoman empire of before, it's conflicts and engagements with fellow NATO members has become a crack in the Alliance as a whole, it's entanglements within Syria and Libya have made it a constant cost to it's coffers with little benefit to it's people or economy and as we speak Erdogan and his buddies are trying to undermine and destroy Turkish democracy and the rule of law. Going forward I don't see many great things for Turkey, either it is going to revolt and move towards embracing of the old path of progress set by Attaturk or it's going to continue down it's current neo-ottoman focus towards middle-eastern conflicts and at best pan-turkish expansionism, I don't think it's going to work out well for them if they pick the later option.
    7
  73. 7
  74. 7
  75. 7
  76. 7
  77. 7
  78. 6
  79. 6
  80. 6
  81. 6
  82. 6
  83. 6
  84. 6
  85. 6
  86. 6
  87. 6
  88. 6
  89. 6
  90. 6
  91. 5
  92. 5
  93. 5
  94. 5
  95. 5
  96. 5
  97. 5
  98. 5
  99. 5
  100. 5
  101. 5
  102. 5
  103. 5
  104. 5
  105. 5
  106. 5
  107. 5
  108. 5
  109. 5
  110. 5
  111. 5
  112. 4
  113. 4
  114. 4
  115. 4
  116. 4
  117. 4
  118. 4
  119. 4
  120. 4
  121. 4
  122. 4
  123. 4
  124. 4
  125. 4
  126. 4
  127. 4
  128. 4
  129. 4
  130. 4
  131.  @mehmetersahin9602  you want war, misery, conflict, terrorism and rapists around the world. I want peace, open borders is the road to war, you call me names, you wish to see my family and nation be raped, you wish to dehumanze us, wish to stir up resentment and conflict in the west. You are a totalitarian, ideological driven fanatic who is projecting your ignorance, intolorances and lack of western values onto someone els. It is people like you that threaten and try to stir conflict who are the ones who want more Hitlers and stalins to rise to power, you want that for Europe and the west so you can get your end times conflict and stir up war between islam and Christianity. But it won't work, muslims all over the world are rejecting your narrative of war and conflict, the imam of peace in Australia gets death threats from you people all the time but he is brave and will seek to reform islam. In Europe muslims who intergrate themselves are welcomed, while muslims who seek to divide and controle people (like you) are being rejected, attacked and ridiculed by other muslims like Achmed amoutalep in Rotterdam, the Netherlands and everyone els. Your era of terror is coming to an end, your words do not controle me, your fears do not hurt me, your hatred does not make me back down, I wish you peace and hope that all borders be raised and violent elements be removed so we can all live in peace, no more support for israeli and US wars, no more tolorance for warmongers like you. I know the road is difficult, I know you want more immigrants to stir up conflicts, I know force must be used on warmongers like you and the USA but it is a small price to pay for lasting peace, your biggest fear. Peace be with you, may you find salvation in truth and not war.
    4
  132. 4
  133. 4
  134. 4
  135. 4
  136. 4
  137. 4
  138. 4
  139. 4
  140. 4
  141. 4
  142. 4
  143. 4
  144. 4
  145. 4
  146. 4
  147. 4
  148. 4
  149. 4
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152. 4
  153. 4
  154. 3
  155. 3
  156. 3
  157. 3
  158. 3
  159. 3
  160. 3
  161. 3
  162. 3
  163. 3
  164. 3
  165. 3
  166. 3
  167. 3
  168. 3
  169. 3
  170. 3
  171. 3
  172. 3
  173. 3
  174. 3
  175. 3
  176. 3
  177. 3
  178. 3
  179. 3
  180. 3
  181. 3
  182. 3
  183. 3
  184. 3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188. 3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. 3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204. 3
  205. 3
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208. 3
  209. 3
  210. 3
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258.  @AtomicReverend  not accuate at all, Russia is no threat to Europe, in fact Russia trades the most with Europe and the sanctions on Russia and Germany are promoted by the USA and it's easy to see why, the USA loves it's power projection and good relations between Europe and Russia stand in the way of that. We don't need NATO, you need NATO, hell we are likely to go to war with Turkey which the USA has propt up whole waging wars in the middle-east threatning Iran (who just so happen to be a major trading partner for Europe) The USA benefits the most from NATO, it pays rather little for the amount of influence they get, in exchange for free movement, Logistic support and supplylines for it's wars in the middle-east. The USA has weakend Europe, caused waves of migrants and is the main reason we even have multiculturalism in Europe, it's not the European media calling white people racists for existing, mostly US media and US NPO's. The USA even allied with Saudi-arabia who funds most terrorism in Europe to begin with. I don't think your very intrested in hearing our opinion on the matter, nor do you seem to care that anti americanism is more populair than anti migrant sentiment, the USA won't lift a finger to help us, won't support nationalism for us and most likely will engage in hostile action and support of our enemies to try and destabalize us, I don't like Merkel or the rest of the globalist trash but you do realise globalism is a US ideology one you only resently with Trump, kinda, sorta not realy tried to adress. Demografics in the USA are much more severe and the retoric much more anti white than in Europe, with exception of the UK and perhaps Sweden.
    2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269.  @vojislavl6665  yes national socialism is socialism as in your shared article. Did you read the rest of it though? Socialists used force and propaganda to try and get socialism enacted for their own benefit not because they care about people and it indirectly led to the deaths of millions. Look we can go back and forth here, you can cherry pick any tiny detail and pretend like it makes your ideology look good, im sure other mass movements that led to war and famine at some point did something good but that's not the core of their ideology, that's not the foundation of their policies and how they are implemented. You are acting like a ideologically possed person who can't doubt their own ideology and the problems it has caused, the deaths, the famines, lifting people out of poverty for a few years and then collapsing the economy into famines and death is not a stable ideology. You don't care about economics and neo-liberalism has long since abandoned any ideas of individual freedom or regulations and intervention in the market for the good of the people, the bail outs of banks in 2008 only helped the banks not the people, while the government in iceland did jail the bankers and their practices and are doing fine years later as a result. There is no perfect economy, there is no total capitalism or total communism anymore, most of the world now has a mixed model of diffrent kinds of policies for each industry which bring diffrent kinds of results. In Russia the state owns most of the energy companies because that is a key part of their economy which drives investment into their other industries. In Venezuela they nationalized the oil industry but because of costly and top down socialist programs and lack of investment in new sectors when the oil prize collapsed their economy collapsed. In the USA they have an almost self sufficient economy and internal market, partly due to capitalism and largely due to annexation and collonial policies during it's first few decades of existing as a state on the continent. In israel they have a big tech and military industry, in south korea the same. Some nations are more victims of sanctions and policies by the world bank, like African nations, Russia and Iran. Im not trying for some gotcha moment, im trying to teach you that Socialism as an economic model has failed time and time again, the people might want it, clever propagandists and violent political actors might force the government to implement their policies but they will generaly bring bad results. Nations like Sweden and the UK are completly swarmed by migrants which cripple their healthcare system, their economy, their public security and political stability, those most in favor of it are once again mostly socialists who want to bring in more voters for their bad economic policies. Hell corporations like Google love to work for them since they get to abuse and censor people they don't like because individual rights aren't often supported by socialists, I have to copy this comment to check if it does not get insta censored, more of a side issue unrelated to this but it's super annoying and I never see any socialists authoritarians stand up to it. Socialism has failed and will continue to fail and drag down more and more nations that capitalist nations will have to deal with, next one to fall I expect will be Mexico, i live in the Netherlands we invented capitalism, the Americans perfected it and profited by it greatly while nationalist and militarist annexation of north America made them the superpower they are today. Capitalism works, it has flaws because humans have flaws, humanity is greedy and violent by nature, in Socialism and communism even more so.
    2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. @Atrid you do realise much of the multicutural crap (which I agree is cancer) was implemented on the national level and it started in the USA. Secondly how can the US dollar work for it's fast and international commerce but not in Europe? The southern European nations (mostly greece) sould not have been allowed to adopt the Euro, they ran their economy into the dirt and the EU had to bail them out multiple times, now after a harsh periode of reform they are kinda sorta doing oke but they need a lot more investment and realy they don't have much to offer the world or the EU besides nice holiday locations and good food. Thirdly most of the migrants come from africa and the middle-east because of US intervention in those regions which destabalized Both them and us, the USA don't mind they can hide from the fallout of their wars, I think NATO sould be disolved, USA is not a very reliable ally, their alliance with saudi arabia is why we have so many wahabi terrorists in the west, nothing to do with Iran btw. And finaly, yes the commision is not directly voted on and they reserve the right to make legisation, however the parlement must still aprove it and in the past the parlement had no vote at all. Personality I blame Merkel and her actions during the debt crisis and migrant crisis that made Europe so unstable, she tried to kill two bird with one stone, get cheap slave labor and curb the aging problems of Europe which only angered and divided the whole of Europe, however she is going out and we have a new push by reformers and identitarian movements to try and subvert the EU, I understand where your coming from but the USA won't change, the EU can if it can not then it's truely doomed.
    2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323.  @grantlit2196  communism is always forced upon people, subverted into institutions and almost always can only be removed by force and has led to more deaths, starvation and misery then any other ideology in human existence. it's quite bizzar how some people (not you) still defend this ideology and the reason why ''western liberalism'' is no longer working is because it is no longer driven by capitalism, free markets, human rights and sanity but instead is driven by emotions, regulations, corporations, government spending and controle over economics. I partly agree, most other nations can't be democracies or show great resistance against them and it's unrealistic to try and shove them in, better to lead by example not by force i would say. the USA is special in that it's location is perfect, has expanded through war and treaties, has no external enemies and has vast amount of resources and little to no internal conflict like say with the natives (since there aren't many around) ironically the USA form of collonialism was one of the harshest ones around, European colonies were quite mild in comparison which is why decolonalism even happened and it's even more ironic how people remember it as being so horrible yet very few people make the same comparison to the USA and the reason is because the USA is so powerfull and everyone wants to be their friend and not insult them by telling the truth. btw I don't support any form of reparations or whatever, I think that's nonsense but I do take issue with how people seem to demonize European colonialism as the worst thing ever, yet ignore all the other and far more sever ideologies and nations in history, another ones are the ottoman empire, the russian empire, the USSR, South american nations.
    2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333.  @TorianTammas  speaking the language is just a small part of representing the governed, the USA went in thinking they could turn it into a nation state with western values and what not, which was just stupid and some people at the start pointed it out, much more reasonable would have been to make a constitutional monarchy or just a monarchy to begin with and have them rule as your puppet, even then it does not always work out but that would have lasted much longer than the weak government the USA set up. im not too sure how the British and Russians did or their mistakes but in the case of the russians it had a lot to do with the USA backing the rebels and the russians having poor tactics but before Afganistan has been taken over before so it's not impossible just very hard. the USA has a habit of going to war with nations which it knows it can stomp with ease and also has pretty strong allies that it can help to share the burden but the USA has not been engaged in any war with equal forces, the closest is probably the korean war with China or ww2 and even then it was more so the russians doing the fighting than the americans. Today the USA would have a hard time dealing with a war with Russia and/or China and many of the top generals openly say now they can't beat them at the same time alone and would need to arm and prepare their allies for such a conflict which lucky for the USA many alies would probably do but as we see China become stronger economically and Russian being so vital for EU energy sources the US-EU alliance as well as US-Japan-Korean alliance becomes more difficult, remember the USA was able to get and maintain it's current army due to being the world's biggest economy, the USA might lose that to China as well as lose the scientific race if it lags behind. The USA is by no means doomed but me a European citizen looking towards the USA can see the cracks and the disfunctional behaviour in US leadership and ability to project force, if I can see it then so can the US enemies, hell the USA lost a war game with a Swedish sub and had one of it's aircraft carriers hit and a few weeks ago they lost another war game to the British, there is still room for improvement and China does already have some advantages in terms of cybersecurity and hypersonic missles, it's very concerning.
    2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413.  @definitelynotacheater  of course not, the teachers in Turkey talk about how glorieus the Ottoman empire was and how islam is part of their culture, not in France. Turkey has plenty of radicals and islamists only difference is they tend to target minority groups rather than majority groups like in Europe. most of Turkey is islamic and secular that´s their brand so to speak but there are plenty of clashes between the seculare and islamic rules, Erdogan however is also a very militaristic and orderly type of dictator so he does not want any internal problems, the turkish secret service also deals with potential problems far more harshly than we do in the west. I feel like you aren´t being honest and realistic the way things are going in turkey and how more islamic they have become since the days of Attaturk, veils have come back, Erdogan himself is more of a promoter of the traditional family rolls and involved with wars in islamic nations of the middle east and pan-turkish idealism in places like Azerbaijan, Erdogan himself has also said he won't continue trying to get into the EU if Turkey is not in by 2024 I believe, overal the situation has become more hostile towards Turkey and from Turkey and we are now also seeing multiple crackdowns on radicals in places like France and I'm willing to bet Erdogan is not too happy with that. hell here in the Netherlands we even have an islamic party which is mostly funded by Turkey, in the people's tongue it's nicknamed ''the long arm of Erdogan'' and it's easy to see why.
    1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418.  @definitelynotacheater  ''Erdogan said Turkey’s application to EU continues and a few months ago prior to that he said ‘We saw Turkey’s future in Europe’, he is into the West too as I said. But for me, I dont think Turkey will ever get into the EU.'' Turkey getting into the EU has major problems for many reasons, the major problem is not that Turkey is majority muslim, nor that Turkey is somehow less authoritarian compared to other nations that already are in the EU, the major 2 reasons I would say why Turkey can't/won't be allowed into the EU is because of the schengen agreement and because Turkey's economic and demografic influence could change the balans of power within the EU structure. the schengen area or free movement of people within the block is problematic because then many turkish people could move to the west and we would have a border with unstable nations like Syria, Iraq, Georgia and close to other potential conflict zones, right now Turkey is a buffer between those nations and you can see that the EU wants to keep it that way which Erdogan also tries to exploit by threatening to use refugees within Turkey as some sort of biological weapon. the other reason as mention is the EU is currently run by Germany-France-Netherlands-Italy and somewhat Poland, allowing Turkey in would disrupt this balance of power which is already unstable, if turkey were to join the EU, Poland would be upset, Germany and France would be weaker, Italy and Netherlands would also be upset to a degree, overal it would make the EU stronger but internally it would be much more unstable which is something they can't allow right now.
    1
  419. 1
  420. ​ @definitelynotacheater  ''8) Lastly, I know you guys have a negative view about us because of Turks in Germany/Netherlands/France etc but majority of them come from the eastern rural regions and even us make of them calling names like ‘alamancı’ . They do not represent us. I know there are many good respectful Turks too but they dont represent us either. Every indivual represent themselves. Kick foreigners who doesnt respect the country’s rules and refuse to adapt. And dont let islamists get power. Seriously if the videos I saw on youtube is real, number of islamists in Europe is really concerning. Just a few days ago Chechens and Kurds in France were killing each other and it looked like a civil warzone from M.E instead of France. Peace ✌🏻'' yes most people have negative views on turks and muslims in general due to terrorism and hostility by Erdogan and saudi organisations, though Turks are more respected than many other groups. the ironic thing is that many nationalists, conservatives faced more hostility from their own native people and from left wing groups than they did from pro islamist groups, we warned them about these groups since early 2000s and 2010s and we were all attacked by the esablishment and media as ''radicals'' and ''far right'' now skip to 2021 and suddenly most things considered ''far right'' in the early 2000s is now mainstream political policy, if they had listened to us along with most of the public a lot of bloodshed and humiliation would not have happened and many of the more hostile policies towards islamist and islamic populations would not have been nessisary, hell I doubt you even would have had Brexit so to say the EU, Merkel and others failed to see this coming would be an understatment. France is one of the worst places right now in Europe, same with Belgium, the UK, Germany and Sweden, we also have many of these types of problems in the Netherlands but not nearly as the same degree as other nations. if I pick the one who is messing up the most I think it would be the UK, since Sweden is very small in terms of population, Germany while bad still has some hardline police, France is openly resisting now but the UK has multiple problems, a totalitarian government i would say and almost no proper resistance towards it, it's fully abandoned it's senses on top of Brexit being problematic for them, I would not be suprised if Scotland and Northern ireland leave the union, that's how bad it's getting there.
    1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497.  @breanainnlyness7910  I don't think you understand what ignorant means. It means you don't understand something, like you are doing right here by denying that culture and ethnicity are connected, this is how cultural identity works and you sound like the type of authoritarian who would call others copying other people's culture cultural appropiation, yet deny the existence of a people when it suits you, how can you copy something that's not separate from you? I understand the world and have studied and learned from many diffrent cultures, people's and history that's why I know there are diffrences. Have you ever worked with people from Poland? China? Ghana? Spain? The Netherlands? Would you say they are all the same or that their culture is not linked to their identity? Ask any doctor and they know where people come from, their genetics and therefor their ethnicity matter for medicine. Voting paterns in diffrent demografically and diffrent ethnic groups matter, that's why politicians try to cater to collective populations voting blocks because they are different from others, this is not very hard to understand but it seems like this is some advanced rocket science for you to grasp. I understand how you are ignorant, irrational and dishonest about culture and ethnicity because it's easy to be lazy and it's hard to understand the diffrences between diffrent people, perhaps if you experience the world and other people more you will come to understand my point. No wonder the han Chinese are taking over the world, they have a good understanding of themselves, they have a unified population while here in the west I have to try and explain to you how civilization works.
    1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537.  @toddharig8142  clearly you never met a nationalist before, I find your comment very amusing but also sad because the truth is that globalists, corporatists and progressives tend to rely on shunning everyone but the strong (aka the rich), creating pages of pages of dehumanzing propaganda and they are far more ruthless and manipulative then any nationalist alive today which includes actual fascists. There is no capitalism, there is corporatism which means the government must create the Tyrany for them in the first place, it was not capitalism that forced a global lockdown due to a disease, that's the state the same state leftists, socialists and progressives want to empower even more and believe libertarians are the same as fascists. The USA was based on racial nepotism and expansion through war, that's how they became a superpower in the first place, China today the second largest economy in the world is 99% han Chinese, India wants to be the same kind of country with a strong hindu identity. Meanwhile in the west we allow rape gangs to run free because our police don't want to be called racist, can't have any promotion of our own population growth without being labeled nazi's, how els would you preserve and create a new pan European identity without using the identities of the European nations and people's that exist in the first place? Seems very irrational and illogical to me, almost anti white and racist to presume otherwise. But from your use of language I don't think you are intrested in any logical, rational, mature conversation, more likely trying to convince your own ideology of being somehow superior while ignoring reality, well as long as you don't wish to censor me or use violence to defend your corporations I don't mind, I just hope we can stop the mass migration waves before democracy is destroyed from within which it already has to a large degree.
    1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542.  @toddharig8142  sorry did not read all, I don't think you are realy worth talking to since you are kinda stuck in a leftist loop mindset of thinking im somehow a "white supreemist" while ignoring the effects of demografics and actualy policies made by the EU and it's goal as a organisation, how pretending ethni-city does not matter in a collection of nation states based on ethno-cultural identities is beyond me. I feel like your stuck in a loop where if someone mentions say nationalism, you automatically respond with certain defence mechanisms, try to change the subject or make assumptions and then believe your assumptions are true. If I mention the ra-pe cases by isl-amic groo-ming gangs in the UK, you say that does not matter or X is a bigger deal or you believe X matters so you must be a na-zi, how would anyone be able to make you doubt your own authoritarian believes and anti whi-te rac-ism if anything someone says can be warped into somehow being w-hite supreemism? Regardless if you think it does not matter or whatever assumptions you think are true, in real politic and in power politics, demografics matter, that's how Russia was able to get a vote in one cremea, why the state of israel exists, how peace came to Europe after a series of population exchanges after ww1 and ww2, why the british government needs to censor people's opinions if they offend certain people, why terrorism happens on all sides in western nations, why certain political parties like pro migrant parties in Europe exist, due to immigration in the first place. I don't understand why you pretend like these things don't exist, don't matter or why you would write pages of pages of word for word responses rather then adressing the overal message of the comment, idk how I would be able to convince you nor would it realy matter since what actualy influences society is demografics, education, censorship, media, government action and immigration policy more so then rational debate which we aren't realy having right now because I can't seem to break through your ideological bubble your in.
    1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612.  @vojislavl6665  the first wellfare state was made by Bismarck a conservative, the wellfare state is more of a nationalistic and community based system of a distribution of wealth, Socialism aka unions, labor groups and nationalisation of the economy are means to controle and distribute the means of production, in communism the state has direct controle, in national socialism the state rules it's economy through corporations, called corporatism, current day China is a lot like national socialism. Take unions for instance, unions aren't realy mean't to give workers beter pay, unions are mean't to get benefits and protectionist policies, in the UK the metro networks are controled by the unions, they influence the government to enforce licence for their specific job and they controle who gets such a licence, so they are almost never fired, they don't grow the economy, they ensure the economy stagnates. In venuzuwela they nationalized the oil industry and the government gave out all kinds of goodies like mircowaves, cheap housing, consuming products because oil prices were high, they did not diversify their economy which as a result when oil prices collapsed so too did the economy of venuzuwela. Socialist movements are less about the people or providing benefits to citizens and more about controling the economy, it always needs authoritarian means to enforce it's policies and long term the economy always stagnates. In sweden the so called "socialist" ideal state, the economy is largely free market with a rather large wellfare state and the biggest problem there is mostly progressives and socialists that want more and more immigration to replace workers rather then support their intrests. The only some what socialist I have seen in Europe at least that cares about workers is the current PM of dennmark that also wants protectionist policies but in terms of migration laws and benefits to it's citizens. Idk what your idea of Socialism is but I don't think you understand how historically socialism had failed, you could argue because of how large multinational corporations have become that some form of government intervention aka neo-liberalism is nessisary but this has led to corporatism. And on a short note of healthcare, the USA has such a expensive healthcare system because 1. It's people are largely unhealthy and fat, 2. The government is highly involved with medicade and medicare programs, 3 private healthcare providers compete with eachother, get to enjoy pricefixing while the government takes their share of the profits, in Germany and in the Netherlands we have a mixed model where we have private healthcare but all of the corporations are partly backed by the government, not socialist healthcare unlike the UK which is currently failing and can't provide healthcare to most of it's citizens anymore, esspecialy elderly.
    1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690.  @LegendNinja41  the problem however is that it was russian territory and was given to ukraine in the 1980s i believe, what was given can be taken back and many nations have annexed and ethnically cleansed lands that were not theirs, latest of which is golan hights by israel so the idea that this is some huge threat is kinda overblown. This is however how geopolitics works and Gets messy when both sides have arguments and secret agenda's for proxy conflicts. Population transfer are a bloody and messy affaire, people resist, people die, need to be relocated, start over, lose their homes, some become terrorists, having Russia annex cremea might not have been the best but might also have prevented further bloodshed. As for sanctions you are correct the sanctions hurt Russia more then they do the US or the EU but that does not make it oke, it creates conflicts, it hurts people and those who enforce order which is the whole purpose of them, divide the nation of Russia, weaken it to the benefit of the USA, Europe does not benefit, Russia is not closer in our sphere, we can't influence their society in isolation, they get stronger ties with China, much beter plan would have been to lift sanctions on Russia and demand sanctions or limits on Chinese intrest in Russia, divide and rule, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I don't consider Russia a threat, they are paranoid and surely must be matched in greater or equal force in case of a military conflict but trade and diplomatic solutions are beter.
    1
  691. 1
  692.  @MadM0nte  ohhhh cute you actualy try to seem clever, how refreshing. Well duh they Just lost their top general in an act of war by the USA, from what I gathered the air defence saw a plane, thought it was an american plane and shot it out of the sky's, they even apologized for it. I tend not to try and go into too deep on these kinds of channels rarely do I see any civil or well educated people worth engaging, so I try and keep it simple so they can keep up and don't fall in the typical media traps they like to pretend matters. As for geo politics, demografics matter because they determine the actions of goverments, which influence geo-politics as im sure you would understand, take brexit for instance, in terms of geo-politics, the british will likely seek closer ties with the USA, as the british have left mostly because of the threat of immigration, caused by geopolitical instability caused by the USA and with the actions of Merkel, again, demografics matters, as we need the rise of nationalist parties all over Europe, largely due to demografically shifts, so too will geopolitical agenda's change. I happen to agree with you though I would add that the democratic party is less wellfare oriented and more warfare and insanity oriented, the whole democratic debate was a heap of trash and insanity from what little I cared to listen to, only Andrew Yang seemed to have any new intresting ideas at all but you wanted more about geopolitical changes and less about my observations around political and demografic changes. Most of the world just wants to trade with Iran and Europe wants to trade with Russia, as we see with Nordstream 1 and 2, the only one getting pissed off about that is the USA and some eastern European countries, so this will create a geopolitical issue for the USA, while China continues to buy ports and gains more influence in Europe and Africa, their one belt one road project will continue to expand, while Russia will strugle to get by, potentialy facing implosion if something were to happen with Putin. You seem rather angry and emotional, please when you respond can you talk like a civilized person? If you wish to learn more you sould just ask, not yell and act like a todler, it makes you look unhinged.
    1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741.  @dadsonworldwide3238  the germans got pretty far with what little they had, I find it very hard to believe they negotiated an end to collonialism, since every European power wanted to enforce their collonial rule but was stopped by the USA, you even had opperation unthinkable that would have liberated the rest of Europe which was supposedly the whole point of the war to begin with but the USA sayd no. The USA is hypocritical because it's propagandized this image of "freedom loving, americans, liberating Europe from the evil nazi's" but in reality the nazi's were the closest to manifest destiny of the USA, the USA was what inspired Hitler to begin with, there is reason why they banned his books for so long, you read worst things on youtube comments everyday. But the issue i have is not on any moral grounds, it's the lies, the fabrication and theft of European culture, citizens, media and history for the gain of the USA, while communism was left to ravage the world. The USSR was largely incompetent, ruled by an even more totalitarian leader than Hitler, the whole of ww2 is a giant joke to me, of lying self intrested people and nations on all sides and nobody has learned anything from the war. But I don't care about all that much since it"s not going to change, the USA has enforced it's will, tricked the british, betrayed the west and took what they wanted, what my issue is that NATO sould not exist, the USA sould not be in any other country besides their own region and perhaps Japan and south korea, yet they expanded more and more, use sanctions to kill millions and use wars and arming of terrorists to finish the rest, the USA loves the current order because they benefit the most from it. The USA hates peace and loves war, they love "free trade" but only if they benefit most, they hate theocratic goverments but ally with saudi arabia and israel, they say they respect nations but ignore problems that makes that a delusional fantasy. What future is there with the USA? Non, worse than non, as long as nations buy US military goodies they are happy, if they want independence and self determination they will make threats and sanctions.
    1
  742.  @dadsonworldwide3238  yes I read all about the middle-east and those treaties, typical people say read more on history when they lack an understanding of it, I don't realy have that, I read all the history books, most of the banned books and books on power and goverment institutions. Not very important in the Grand scheme of things, much more important would be the partition of british mandate of palestine into the state of israel and palestine, which is the flashpoint for most wars in the middle-east today. WW2 was mostly a unessisary war that destroyed Germany because of the poor decisions made by the british, the americans and the french, not having population transfers after ww1, blaming the war on Germany (while austria-hungary caused it by threatning serbia with their insane ultimatum), combine that with the stab in the back myth by german generals and the monarch elites and the rise of communism partly led by jewish intelectuals like Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky (see spartacus rebellion, Bavaria) stoked the fires for a wave of anti semitism. Something most history books will fail to mention. As for India, the british raj was quite brutal in it's crackdown of protests, starvation caused by Winston Churchill actions to ensure food rations were filled for the war made India rebel again. But it was the americans and their involvement because of the Zimmermann telegraf that "forced them" into the war that was the most stupid act by the USA, the USA for decades wanted isolation and denied any attempt by European empires to gain influence on the two continents while the USA could just get involved with European affairs. The true irony is that Germany in ww2 basicaly tried to copy the USA's manifest destiny, just a few centuries to late to be tolorated by the other powers, the UK lost the most while they could have kept their empire they decided war was the beter alternative then sharing influence with Germany. Im not here to make excuses for what the germans did in ww2, simply saying the Actions by the british and americans contributed more to the german reactions during the war then they like to admit and in the end, they simply traded one despotic tyrant in for an even worse one Stalin. And now we live in the shadow of the fiction that largely is ww2, not because it did not happen but because history is not remembered at all, every year we repeat the same puppet show while we ignore what caused it, dooming humanity to repeat it again. Fdr was praised by Hitler and Stalin for his new deal, he was basicaly the third dictator in the making, though as they say, the victor writes the history books.
    1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836.  @lif3andthings763  your opinion means very little to me and you don't know how the colonial system worked. it basically works like this, resources go from colonies to Europe, used to produce products and are then sold back to colonies and a few products are sold to other western countries but basically they are enclosed economies, it's very disfunctional compared to the global economy we have today, on top of that many of these colonies had to get massive investment in order to create the conditions for products to be sold to. European powers wanted to keep their colonies because they managed and had invested into it greatly and many knew that without their policies and support those nations would collapse which is what happened in many places where decolonisation happened, the smart natives who lived there moved out before they got decolonised, the nations that were better off were those with high number of settlers or had strong educational investment like in india. the USA did not wish for these colonies to fall into communism so they rather have them collapse then be ruled by colonial powers, ironically many fell into communism after decolonisation anyways. many europeans no longer supported the colonial system because after ww2 many had no interest to keep investing into them for minor profits and rather wanted to invest into their own economies, combined with the marshal plan had the largest growth in their economies since the industrial revolution, no colonies needed.
    1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863.  @user-to2jw7nb8v  what does it matter if it's the biggest industry if that industry can't provide for the huge number of people that live there? I bet farming is a big part of north Korea's economy but that still means they have food shortages and famines which they get aid from the west from to not starve to death. There are parts of Africa in terms of soil, enviroment and industry to support industrial scale farming and most of those places are in the southern parts of Africa, though even there some are dependent on fertilizer imports from the west and they can't grow enough food for the whole continent, also don't forget that most of Africa is very hot but not very humid except for certain parts, most of Africa are arid, supporting safe drinking water while also providing enough food is difficult, let alone if climate change continues, pretending like they are food secured is going to backfire very badly, however with the right investments and proper farming technieks, along side GMO's and industrial farming they might be able to better sustain themselves long term. As for Europe, we export a lot of food and farming tools to the rest of the world, we are very food secured but import a lot of exotic foods and sweets which yes are farmed in parts of Africa but they are mostly luxury goods, we also export a lot of dairy and animal products, unless your talking about very small states in western Europe or the colder climates in northern Europe we produce more than enough to sustain ourselfs and if need be we could switch to more productive methodes to overproduce more than we currently do, most of Africa can't do that, same for the middle-east.
    1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891.  @af8828  you just sayd Bernie Sanders who is an open socialist, many of the green parties in Europe are socialists, often we call them water melons because they are green on the outside but red on the inside. I don't understand why you think the western nations are more to blame when India, China polute the environment more then all of the western world combined, Partly that's due to enviromentalist policies in the west and lack of those policies in asia. Idk if you know your history of enviromentalism but the nazi's were enviromentalists and if you want a global effort or want other nations like say Brazil, developing nations like in Africa to stop contributing to climate change you would have to force them to stop having so many kids, block their economic growth and force enviromentalist policies on them, how are you going to do that without use of force and authoritarianism? Idk why you are being so illogical, naive and judgmental for what I see as a logical observation based on historic and objective facts of politics and human nature, seems rather easy to understand. Idk seems like you just hate the western world while pretending to care about the environment. I used to be on the leftwing, even somewhat of a progressive and this lack of objective argumentation and emotional arguing is why I left the leftwing and became more rightwing and nationalistic, I don't want imperialism but how are you going to enforce your ideas without use of force? People are just going to vote for the environment? On a global scale? You realy believe that's realistic?
    1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903.  @sahhaf1234  well yes and no, most Europeans are aware of the USA's involvement in the middle-east and some are aware that the major nations, aka UK, France and to a lesser degree Russia, Italy and Germany have a hand in the development there, it's largely been a US led effort so it's easy to just focus on the USA and not see the influence we had in the matter. That being sayd we suffered the most compared to the USA from the fallout of these wars but are unable due to NATO the current issues with Turkey and Russia to deal with the matter effectively, we just don't have the military, the willpower or the influence to change course set by bigger players. The refugees have been largely focused on Turkey, Jordan, Italy and Greece and for a long time the EU had resorted to allowing refugees to come to Europe by influence from Merkel, however after the brexit vote which was largely fueled by fears of migrants and refugees they are now (slowly) realising they need a more direct and militaristic solution to the conflict and the US in these regions. As for why they attacked iraq, Libya, Syria and others is difficult to say, some say the military industrial complex, others to counter Russia, other because of israeli influence through APAC and other lobbies including the saudi lobby, perhaps a combination of all of them? Idk for sure anymore. As for the USA, it's change a lot from it's roots and became very corrupt through banking and corporate power, some of which now have more power then most western nations, which is what fuels anti americanism and anti globalism around the world, that's why you had Donald Trump to begin with he presented himself as an outsider and it got voters, it won't be the first time and seeing their current state, it would not surpise me if they somehow make it so he can run again in 4 years, breaking the 2 limit termship rule in the USA or just becomes a new political dynasty like the bushes and the Clintons.
    1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924.  @lordbuckethead9768  I know a lot about US history more than most Europeans or most americans, the USA has not been isolationist for a very long time and has both engaged and funded both sides in many a conflict or rise of new conflicts, the USA was already strongly involved in ww1 selling arms to the UK with civilian ship, got involved directly due to a telegram from a German diplomat which basicaly was wondering if Mexico could help out if USA got directly involved in ww1 (it was already selling arms and food to the UK long before this) The USA was also strongly involved in ww2 and set itself up to be attacked by Japan with it's oil embargo, the USA is not an isolationist nation it was even involved in aggresive foreign policy and expansion both in north america, asia and Europe almost from it's creation. The current world order is the US order, Globalization has been it's creed for a very long time, from an american citizen perspective it looks bad but from the perspective of the rich and corporate class as well as political elites things have never been better which also explains the wealth gap in the USA between rich and poor and the need for the USA to be involved with wars even if they don't pose any threat to the USA, the irony is the USA has wasted a huge amount of time, trust and resources in the middle-east while China grew rich in the background. The EU does not really need the USA, the European nations are more than able to fund and keep their own militaries for defence, we done so for centuries, the current weakening is due to the USA world system and denial of European involvement in wars or military spending, if the USA wants to leave the rest of the world it could do so and all it's allies would need is a few years to make up the difference but it be a huge shock for the rest of the world "why would the USA give up it's super power status and major economic reach in the rest of the world to return to the illusion of isolationism?" Russia and China would be overjoyed as well as many European elites, in public they be disapointed but behind closed doors they cheer for the oppertunity to gain more power, though they might worry about other European powers causing conflicts it's not something that's really new. Let the old world burn? More like the new world order burn the old world will be doing just fine.
    1
  925. 1
  926.  @Qrt45  I don't expect the middle east to be a bastion of love and freedom without the USA but without a doubt the actions of the USA made things much, much worse, if the USA just went in like it did in Iraq and overthrew the regime there and replaced it with a monarchy, a new dictatorships or even a silly democracy (silly as in silly trying to make a western style democracy in that region) then that would have been better than what they actually did do, which was put sanctions on the regime in charge of syria and fund terrorists groups in the region, all of them, they called them ''moderate rebels'' as well as the whole ''assad attacked his own people'' trope that was going around, this became the basis and breeding ground for ISIS which was basically the islamic version of the nazi's in our era, this would not have spiraled out of controle had the USA not given arms and funding to these groups, if the USA had left the situation alone Assad would probably have crushed the rebels or been defeated by one side or the other, by funding the terrorists it made the assad regime look like a force of stability and sanity in the region (he's still a cruel and ruthless dictator but one that has some respect for the rule of law and is a sane actor) israel does complicate things and has acted very poorly as well in the region, though with the USA has also allowed Iran to get more influence in the region, again the USA has been funding terrorists and helping their enemies like Iran gain ground, that's not just bad that's the exact opposite of what the US had to do. Saudi arabia and Israel aren't exactly enemies, Turkey is a relatively new player in the region and that's mostly due to the fallout from Syria with presure from the EU. but how to move forward now? well for starters the USA has finally stopped (at least as far as I know) with funding terrorists groups in the region, it could also help with rebuilding the damage it helped cause with supporting the assad regime or not openly support the regime but give funds to help stabalize the region, the USA could also take some refugees from Turkey and house them somewhere (something Europe had to deal with since 2015 but the USA has done little to nothing to help, Trump at least stopped the funding of terrorists and attacked ISIS for the most part) the middle east is a mess but it's made worse by the USA and it's agenda does not work to counter China, in fact China has grown powerfull while the USA was dicking around here, overal it's been a disaster for everyone, the USA, Europe and the middle-east.
    1
  927.  @stephenjenkins7971  the USA funded multiple groups, pretty much everyone, not sure why you think they only funded the SDF, most of the early weapons of ISIS were given to them by the USA or taken from other "moderate rebels" there were multiple scandals of warcrimes being commited by some of groups supported by the USA. Assad did not start the syrian civil war, you can actually watch the timeline of multiple places during the arab spring and how they devolved. The arab spring happened in multiple nations and some groups in Syria started protesting, those protests started turning violent and there were a number of terrorist attacks, at that point the assad regime started cracking down on the protests and terrorists, at this point most of the civilians had no major weapons or much organisation, then the USA started arming many of the rebels in the hope they would overthrow the assad regime, Obama even threatened to invade Syria, meanwhile groups from Iran as well as Iraq started pouring in to add fuel to the fire. The reality is today (which is why the media does not report on it anymore) is that Assad is the only form of stability in the region, everyone else are either foreign fighters, proxy groups or islamic rebels, the civil war became a proxy war for Israeli, US, Turkish, Kurdish, islamic radical and Iranian interest, the only ally left of Assad is Russia and it started due to the USA's actions, it's funding of rebels and sanctions on Syria, sanctions are a tool of war which in this region can kill thousands, when the USA imposed sanctions on Iraq after the first golf war 500.000+ children starved to death, likewise it turned a minor rebellion into a civil war within a proxy war but somehow Assad is the one to blame? Not the super power, proxy groups or foreign governments getting involved? The dude ran Syria for decades without much opposition, with economic growth and some form of rule of law but suddenly he's the cause of everything going to shit? Not the rebels or USA? Im not buying it, the media Lies all the time as does the USA why should I trust their words over what I can see for myself to be the case?
    1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936.  @stephenjenkins7971  the USA does secret opperations, uses sanctions and picks which ever side to support long before any civil war starts and the USA has been giving weapons and arms to terrorist groups in the region as well as outside of it for years, the USA does this all the time, pick a nation, start looking for radicals there, send them arms and money to start causing chaos, government reacts to shut it down, use the media as propaganda to demonize the regime, put sanctions in place, economy collapses, causes more chaos, say that regime X has got to go and threaten to use troops or fund more rebel groups to do your fighting for you, in the case of Syria last minute the Obama regime backed down but kept funding the terrorists, only till Trump came along did things start to cool down and the media stopped reporting on it, there are still people who report on it but nothing like before, even though the situation has only improved slightly but no mention of Assad's regime, the people or the situation, you have to look for it to find any info and what you find is barely any real information. There is a huge information gap between the media around the 1990s and early 2000s and today, even though technology and the internet should have made more information easier to find, the reality is the opposite, less information, more secrets, censorship and open propaganda networks both the west, China and Russia engage in. Idk what sources you have, all my sources from the past few years have been censored and kicked off most platforms, I think only Caspian Report still does some reporting though little with Syria, Google is perhaps the most censored and all you get is reporting from CNN or other three letter networks not worth a damn and are deeply untrustworthy.
    1
  937.  @stephenjenkins7971  I really don´t understand how you think the world or NATO works, NATO is the USA and if a nation acts or has a government the USA does not like be it democratic, authoritarian or totalitarian it could just kick that country out of NATO and make justifications to justify attack it if it wanted to. but on the issue of EU federalization, help me to understand why the USA would be in favor of it? if doing so makes the US alliance weaker and the presence of US bases uncertain? NATO command itself has always been picked by the USA and does not want EU to become more federal since that would mean a federal army which would mean less reason for NATO alliance existing but you say ''NATO is not part of the USA'' except the fact that NATO is leaders are picked by the USA, is mostly funded by the USA and opposes other nations from forming blocks to replace NATO so in what universe would the USA be in favor doing something that would limit it's ability to project power and maintain it's global alliance!? btw just because the USA does not want further independence and federalization of the EU does not mean it can do anything against it, if one nation goes against US interest that nation would be isolated and crushed if all of the EU suddenly say ''yes lets make a proper federation'' the USA can't wage war or subvert the whole of Europe, while also being in conflict with Russia and China that would be really stupid. this is the issue with NATO, NATO is from the cold war era and worked really well back then, after the collapse of the USSR, NATO has just kept expanding yet has not updated it's mission statement, after 2001 the alliance has mostly been about engaging in foreign wars in the middle east which has been a disaster for US credibility, that on top of the fallout of said wars and covert activity is what helps drive the push for further EU federalization, geopolitics are in action here with multiple conflicts of interests, the USA has not had a leader that is able or willing to change it's mission objective and structure or expand further to solidify it's legitimacy, instead the USA has actually gone behind the backs of many of it's core NATO members without discussing how that conflicts with member states national interest, case and point Australia and France submarine deal as an example. for most members of NATO, NATO has ceased to be an alliance to protect against communism and the USSR and is now mostly a tool for US power projection and influence which is now waning due to the rise of China, energy conflicts with Russia and new economic interests in africa and the middle east mostly about oil, untill the USA resolves these issues and conflicts and makes a new concensus on it's mission goal which could easily replace the USSR with China (communist still in name) with economic support for nations hurt by China's policies, the Alliance could get a new fresh start and help come to a mutual understanding of long term EU goals and NATO, right now that does not exist and thus the cracks in the alliance are forming and conflicts within NATO are no longer out of the question.
    1
  938.  @stephenjenkins7971  again I don't understand how your worldview works, France after ww2 was not exactly the world power and even when France left NATO it was still open and talking with the USA that in case of a war with the USSR they would side with the USA, there was no reason for the USA to become engaged with France because France was not much of a threat, now if France became an ally of the USSR or started doing stuff in Africa or it's colonies that would most certainly get into indirect or direct conflict with the USA. I don't see any difference between the concert of Europe before ww1 and the current era we live in, the only difference being that instead of one European power becoming dominant enough to dictate peace on their terms (currently done by the USA) we had the failed attempted peace by the league of nations which the USA did not back and thus it fell apart, the USA got involved in ww1, made sure nobody actually came to dominate it, then left and did a pikachu face when Germany and the USSR wanted to become the hegemon which again is now filled by the USA. I don't really bother with make believe or childish illusions of propaganda or fake morality, nations act in their own self interest, just as the USA, China, Russia and EU are doing today and as they did in the past, same with the roman empire or the mongol empire, it's more about the nature of war and the nature of civilization that turn the wheel of history, the current moralistic idiots can very quickly become the nazi's of the future, it's all just pretend, same with the USA, the USA is powerfull because it expanded, commited what we would call warcrimes and the current world order is as fragile as it was before, no morality is going to punish nations that win the wars and write the history books . the irony is that many of the founding members and people who made up the EU were actually former fascists and member of the national socialist party of germany and many of it's policies were actually on the agenda of Germany in ww1 and well as ww2 just less voluntary and more directly organised. the USA could very easily become an enemy of Europe if say the EU federalizes, it would start small with minor conflicting issues, Russia could collapse and make the Chinese and EU willing to engage to ''bring peace and stabilty'' back which at that point would anger the USA or imagine of Russia became a democracies and wanted to join the EU? what if conflicts in the middle east and africa made the Europeans act more directly which to the USA could be seen as ''problematic'' the current era exists because the USA forces it to exist do to it's economy, it's industry and esspecially it's military, once one or more of these variables changes so does the behavour and national interest of the USA. ''the USA does not have friends, it has alliances that serve it's national interest'' same with China, same with Russia, same with the EU, thinking it's going to last forever or won't at some point lead to conflict is a great error of reading of history.
    1
  939. 1
  940.  @crescent4996  wars today are realy weird, there have been multiple proxy wars with semi legit democracies and the USA as well as others the funny thing is most often they don't declare war on other nations, instead they use sanctions and use allies to also put up sanctions while/or at the same time actually engaging in acts of war, coups, vote rigging, hacking, air raids, covert opperations and assasinations to get the desired outcome, most of Europe just follows the same line as the USA so there is little need to use such forces but without a doubt the USA would engage with such behavour if it's national interest is being threatened, many elites in Europe (not me) do want China to be the world power or at least the main power in Asia because they believe an alliance with them with or against the Russians is in their interest and in a way they are kinda right. Imagine your some wackey EU politician who just wants power, that wants Europe to be one of the main dominant forces in the world, an Alliance with China makes perfect sense, the Chinese need markets, Russia has resources and you have modern weapons and technical know how, the Chinese aren't going to care about human rights violations, the Chinese system would give that type of Eurocrate immense power over society, the Chinese would not care about imperialism in Africa or the middle-east, the EU + Russia + China would have more than enough power and resources to take over all of the old world and change the status quo, of course some EU politicians imagine these things, some care about the people for sure but others just want the power same with the USA elites.
    1
  941.  @crescent4996  I've read a few articles that many leaders within Germany and France want to try and move towards an EU federalization by 2025, though it would probably take much longer, it's not impossible to happen since a great deal of Europeans want it for security reasons. I've often compared the current EU to the USA under the articles of confederation (the laws within the EU are also called articles btw) back then the USA had the same issues the EU does today, lack of a unified voice, unrepresented populations, lack of proper tax and spend controles, more of a state by state identity than a real american identity, it took great leadership, vision and also a desire to expand that secured and created a true american identity that many americans still have to this day. Europe is much the same, though much older, much more divided and with a lot more bloodshed in between but what makes it work is external forces that threaten them as a whole, that almost forces them to work together and understand that it's either eachother or the Russians/Chinese the USA does not really have sure presures, it could indeed become very isolationist and many of it's people would probably benefit from it, for a while... However history shows that isolationism tends to lead to decline, lucky for the USA they had already expanded so much so it's not really isolationism as much as claiming a mountain of gold as your own but with time isolationism would probably cause stagnation, Europe can't be isolationist it does not have that luxury thus it is much more focused on playing both sides, getting rich while waiting for a chance to justify a full EU Federation. And about the wellfare state, the EU has many different types of wellfare, most of southern and eastern Europe don't have a large wellfare system, sweden has one but is also hyper capitalistic on top, Germany and France have large wellfare states but the people don't have giant big macs or are as unhealthy as many americans are and that has more to do with their culture and their governments, taken all together the collective wellfare systems probably look slightly better than the USA as a whole. The USA also gets major power in trade due to it's military, it's the main reason the USA is the main reserve currency in the world. The EU has to do more for sure but that has to go with a decline in the USA, one gives rise to the other, it's not that it's good or bad but it is what it is so we better make the best of it.
    1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963.  @scotthalland  yes the Chinese and east asian communities have a large group that votes for conservative values but the majority of 3rd world countries do not and these are the groups the leftists and progressives seek the most, protect the most and demand the most. Your lame excuse of "they switch leftwing when the rightwing becomes racist" is a very childish and uneducated argument because it has no bases in reality and does not effect the migrant groups in any meaningfull way, they don't het lynched, they don't get terroized, they don't get robbed or slandered in the media, in fact your argument is the exact opposite of reality, whites face real racism, face terrorism, face abuse, humiliation and loss of wealth and wages and as a result of those conditions they become more racialy aware and more nativistic because not doing so just means more of the same. You might not have noticed by the rightwing and those who oppose anti white racism (like me) face constant censorship, racism, anti white propaganda and can see the attempts by the leftwing to use authoritarian means like immigration to take controle and abuse society. People swing to the leftwing when the leftwing and their media allies report fake news on supposed racist abuse by whited while whites face actual racism and you can just look at most posts on youtube by progressives and leftists they are some of the most genocidal, evil, racist and tyranical things you will ever read. I talk to a lot of different people, alt-right, neo-nazi's, fascisten even commies and non of them reach the level of hatred and racism the progressives and leftist do on a dayle bases. And I love them for it, a few years back they pretended to care about minorities or hide behind the illusion of "fighting the evil racists" now they don't even hide their racism anymore which makes white advocates, nativists and nationalists seem like the sane and rational people. Racism is simply a term used by the elites to slander people's own self intrest, notice how they don't adress racism directed at whites. The more people hold on to this childish Believe of "anti racism" or "racism bad" the more they actualy create and support real racists. The left needs migrants to get votes because they have abandoned logic, reason and the people who made the country, all they have left now is violence and that's the main goal of immigration today, to promote violence, Division, us vs them mentality not the rightwing, the rightwing wants to go back to normality which inevitably means seeking to reverse the racist policies of the leftwing there is no way around that, deportation and assumilation, multiculturalism is tyrany always.
    1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006.  @Ifraneljadida  the odds were pretty stacked against him, it was largely Trump himself who made it happen, not anything the public or the institutions did, in fact the media was on a neverending witch hunt (still is) and he barely got elected only because his opposition was the imbodyment of all that is corrupt and wrong with the USA today, it was realy slim and perhaps the last time it will happen since now the demografics are going to shift even more radically and the democratic party move to remove that last piece that got Trump elected in the first place, the electoral college, since Trump did lose the populare vote, without the electoral college, he would have lost. As for why the USA is so powerfull today, is realy too long to explain in just one comment but typically americans will cite their "freedom, institutions and constitution" as major reasons for their rise to power but in reality while their constitution is impressive, it was realy the US style collonialism called manifest Destiny, waging war and annexing fertile land and "removing" the native populations and creating basically a pan-european ethnostate under libertarian and capitalist economic models, plenty of things could have gone wrong that would have made it a regional power like Brazil, Argentina and others, it annexed large parts of lands from mexico, tried (and lost) in 1812 to annex Canada, it got rid of it's native americans in such an effective way Hitler would even quote and admire it and work the same kind of model for his lebensraum plans. Then ww1 and ww2 happened and with no real competition left the USA stood strong ontop a pille of bodies. Im not saying this as some kind of moral argument or demonisation, all nations did messed up and violent stuff, some of the worst were the british, the french, the Germans and the Russians but the USA is just not strong because of it's freedoms, it's strong because of it's version of collonialism and waging of war like nearly all great nations throughout history, the USA has been and is a lot like the roman Empire, esspecialy now with it's idea that anyone can become a US citizen.
    1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. 1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1