Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Whatifalthist" channel.

  1. 59
  2. 25
  3. 14
  4. 9
  5. If I am right the first amendment talks about freedom of religion, still you speak as though Islam is forbidden bij the constitution. It's weird that you would label hillary a communist despite the fact that she is labeled by most to be very right wing for a democrat, and a common attack on her is that she's in the pockets of the big companies, which can't be further from communism, seeing in communism there are no companies, everything is controlled by the state. neo-liberals isn't made up by the left, it just refers to a new form of liberalism (neo = new). Just like neo-colonialism, ... I always found it weird that in the US right wing is labeled liberal, eventhough liberalism if on the right of the political spectrum. (for less goverment interference => more liberty => from the latin libertas) What happened in so called communist countries is caused by corruption and human greed. The core of communism is that everyone is equal and that the state controls everything inorder to achieve this. It never had the goal to enrich the elites, in fact the capatilistic system is more likely to enrich a certain elite. It's very much like feodalism, only less visible/obvious. What wars are you refering too? Please name them. For every example I'll name a counter example. Hitler and Trump have way more in common than hitler and Obama. Hitler was a nationalist for god sake, learn your history. And please name the similarities between Obama and Stalin, because I can't find one. "who thinks like the Founding Fathers" So now you know what the founding fathers thought and what trump thinks? Also is it good to have him think like people who lived 250 years ago? If the founding fathers lived in this time it's very likely they would have very different views than Trump, but this is speculation and isn't relevant at all. You clearly have no idea what communism actually is (supposed) to be. Stalin only wished for power and after taking over changed the USSR to fit that purpose, he had very different idea's than those who started the USSR in the first place.
    7
  6. 5
  7. 5
  8. 5
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11. 5
  12. 4
  13. 2
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 11:15 this graph shows movement of inventors and only in one recent decade, it is practically irrelevant to what you are saying. But yes, it seems the US has just slightly above half of the inventions of the last century on their conto, though it might be mostly from recent times (for example 1950 onward), in that case a decrease in inventions due to christian/religious socialism could actually have a major impact. Not to mention that improvements on existing systems/inventions might not be counted as inventions, but still plays a majore role. Also it is a stretch to just assume that christian socialism doesn't spread to the US. It is impossible to know. At this moment the US is probably one of the most religious western nations, it could very well have been introduced by the church somewhere around 1900-1930 if it was strong in Europe. 11:55 I wouldn't put almost any of these regimes under atheist ideologies. Whereas with religious deaths, religion often was a main cause, this isn't the case for the "atheistic" ideologies. Maybe irreligious would be better, ie the deaths weren't caused due to any religious reason be it the adversion of religion or the support of religion. Most of the deaths under communism weren't atheistically inspired, the state just happened to be atheistic. If you classify all communist deaths under atheism, you should classify all deaths caused by a religious nations under religious deaths. Also facists often were christian, they definitely were not atheists, maybe just irreligious at best as in that they don't practice their religion. Also the japanese empire might not have had an official state religion, it was stil in practice shinto supported by the state. Classifying it under atheism is also just wrong. I don't see why you used this slide, it doesn't add anything and is full of mistakes.
    1
  17.  @beastmaster1219  I guess the future will tell. But (mass) migrations isn't new. It happens. You can't really stop it shy from putting up a wall and/or killing all those people. So it will come down to just manage it as best as you can: integration and giving another option (improving lives in parts of Africa that are livable for example). At this moment integration is done with a laissez-faire attitude, it can be done more strictly and much more regulated. For example not allowing immigrants to live closely together already might help, since it would prevent small ' immigrant block socities' from forming, where immigrants have no reason to really adapt. Also putting more punishments/rewards regarding integration might help, ... Honestly the laissez-faire attitude was probably the correct way untill this decade, since then most immigration either was due to colonial ties or because these immigrants were specifically brought in (for example to work in the mines). Currently this is a bit different, more to do with jus fleeing really crappy situations, so stronger handling of integration might be really necessary. Will things change? Likely, though that isn't necessarily bad, as long as we can make sure that our core values don't. There are plenty of immigrants (1st/2n/3d generation) that have properly integrated to the point they are not different from indiginous people (not exactly how I wanted to say it, but can't remember the correct one) except heritage, so it certainly is possible. We just haven't been ready for the large amount of immigrants from the past years and the need for a strong integration policy wasn't apparantly as high as it is now and will be in the future.
    1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1