Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "Whatifalthist" channel.

  1. Ah the Asians have it. They're also completely miserable. More so than we are. Minor blessing. Though I've lamented the aesthetic issue too
    3
  2. it's basically become the fucked up version of the American system honestly
    3
  3. 28:07 As someone interested in physics and is in a physics related major, yeah sounds 2/3 like things we actually already do being anti-particle and particle balance, space-time being one fabric, and the third one sounds possible given that I'm unaware of any limits on the size of super massive black holes (scientific name btw) which makes it completely possible that literally everything in the universe is actually orbiting around one huge black hole. And frankly given the size of the universe it's completely possible to not even realize we're in orbit around something that way given the fact that we've only been able to even try to see these things for really about a century. And even more frankly, trying to figure out that we're orbiting with a reference point of the Oort Cloud (where most of the solar system's comets are said to come from). For reference, Voyager 1 which passed Pluto about 12 years after launch, will reach the inner edge in 300 years and leave it (along with the Sun's gravitational pull) in 30,000 years, and the Sun already from Pluto is only the brightest star in the sky with a light level about 5 to 10 street lamps. What all of that reference is to say, since the amount of time to even try to note the distance of travel is so great, it would be a very long time before we could really even try to figure that out.
    3
  4.  @kaochankddr6920  China's economy has not surpassed the USA even in PPP. Industrial capacity however is definitely a weakness which has currently been on the upswing to repair. The USA was the largest industrial power and has the means to do so again. In terms of manpower the US has never really tried to make a very manpower heavy military and always specialized in making a small but strong infantry which will likely come again. The US military is also at the forefront of innovation in all but hypersonic missile technology in a fashion the WWII Germans were never at and in fact lagged behind in almost every instance. So there's a technology gap as well to consider. The carriers are important for naval warfare as they as of yet have not become superceded but you're correct in how they matter little in a ground war which will be how this is fought. The biggest thing however is that the US will in no way be fighting alone as China has a lot of enemies and even its "allies" hate it. With a way to grab in probably the only other power which can industrialize and grow as fast as China: India who will likely be happy to help crush China in a war. There will be 3 key allies for the US to win: Turkey and Eastern Europe to hold back Russia, India to face down China and hold back attrition, and then Vietnam to provide a border to invade China from. Those key allies and the Chinese coalition falls.
    3
  5. @Old Seattle  Which nations believe US hegemony is good? Actually not the US and it's why its trend is increasing towards pulling out. The ones who think it good are the ones dependant on it which is western Europe minus France and Britain.
    3
  6. @Aldon Froelick  When was this? We saw the collapse of only one nuclear armed country and that was a peaceful dissolution.
    3
  7.  @savioblanc  The biggest thing about Brazil is a series of geographical issues and the complete lack of trust in their government and populace which is characteristic of much of Latin America. India has much more social cohesion even if its government is openly corrupt (there's a bureau of bribery lmao). With that it can probably sustain itself.
    3
  8.  VPN  The definition of poverty is also INCREDIBLY different lol. Poverty in India is lacking clean water. Poverty in the US and UK is just having to work a lot and get funded by the government. Not comparable at all.
    3
  9.  @horridcrowd  National socialist ideological would not have but there's no reason that monarchy wouldn't give the same economic ability as that's strictly political much like democracy. Hell even under a dictator it can do well as in Chile they're probably the wealthiest or near wealthiest in Latin America (but dictators like to control things like that for a lot of power, also recently most have been communist). You really just need a STABLE political system and country and for the system to not regulate you so much you can't do anything at all.
    3
  10. already has actually
    3
  11. I think the reason there aren't yet any verifiable results is because he explained he hasn't much funding so perhaps not yet the time to have created much
    3
  12. ​@ataraxia7439 Probably not tbh since they needed the colonies to be profitable, and bringing a lot of labor was hard. Slaves were made out of conquered people who were usually very aggressive on contact (and later integrated), or from the African trade which was already ongoing and then later abolished. And it could have only been abolished after first taking part.
    3
  13.  @avroarchitect1793  I'll be honest if there's anyone without the stomach for war right now it's China considering any sort of losses is the end of thousands of family lines which are incredibly important to their society. Also uh... encirclements neaty avoid that problem.
    3
  14.  @emperorarima3225  Actually I'll be honest I see the American total war having more problems than a more limited conflict because limited conflicts are a "Whatever you have is what you got" kind of war and China has... really just a shit military. Like it's not even good. The soldiers are the worst part of it but at this point the American military can literally coordinate all of its tanks at once and has some of the most disciplined soldiers in the world currently. Chinese break at the first bit of fighting. Also would probably completely de-legitimize the CCP since currently what's keeping them in power is the idea of overwhelming and continuous success. Once that ends.. that's it. Tbh the Chinese military is just a bunch of bafoons in really expensive equipment. The only threat is hypersonic missiles. Everything else is completely ineffectual and the Americans have a defense against. In many ways it's like the French army in the Franco-Prussian War: well funded but completely incompetent. But in this scenario it's magnified by 10 since the French at the time knew how to actually fight a war and had respect for its soldiers while also having superior equipment in many respects with the leadership being the main limiting factor. The Chinese however lag in EVERYTHING but hypersonic missiles. Nothing else is at parity and the troops are completely unreliable. It's basically like Italy in WWII but even the Italians were good when put under good Commanders. Chinese broke at the first sign of fighting when part of UN security forces and only get trained for half a year with leadership rotating in and out. That's not a recipe for success. That's a recipe for getting routed in every battle.
    3
  15. Well the point is that Europe doesn't. And realistically, in terms of global economy if it's impressive that the US has maintained a stable quarter that kind of just supports his point. They've ceded their power in comparison as they haven't been dynamic enough and so China has largely taken their place. On top of that, since their reconstruction where they dominated 36% of the global economy they should've been in an even BETTER place to move things in their favor than the US. But instead have moved lower. And on top of that those places mentioned just never really started as civilizations in the first place. There was never barbarism, civilization, and then decadence. They haven't even started on that train and so honestly their counter-point is in being a counter-point to the model in the first place. Also if anything you can argue that the middle east is in a state of barbarism tbh and that turkey can lead it to civilization.
    3
  16. I think the comment about the right being overtly racist but not in actuality is pretty well seen in most right wing spaces. You'll see them joke about "basketball Americans" but as soon as they see one agreeing with them the veneer falls apart. And then they'll roast them for disagreeing for reasons entirely unrelated to race. The American right is a genuine treat to watch do things. Especially since their behavior is entirely equal and opposite to that of their opponents.
    3
  17. If you don't get the word out you can't get something to change. Also worth noting that he is working toward that in other ways with friends if I remember correctly.
    3
  18. I think that the biggest thing is that China as the aggressor fighting a civil war would basically just end the war quickly in the same way Russia or Germany surrendered
    3
  19. Yeah India was the last resort and came from learning the lessons of the American revolt
    2
  20. @Terranallias  He was saying he was making more money and thus raising his standard of living. More than any worker protections this is the thing which is desired. And even then worker protections are intended for this exact purpose by preventing lower standards of living. If the worker protections aren't keeping you afloat though then who really cares?
    2
  21.  @Faustiangemerald  Well that's not what he's discussing
    2
  22. You're right that no civilization has done anything on that scale, but please remember that most empires brutally opress everyone just basically for fun until the brutality catches up to them and face revolt. In fact, that's how the Spanish conquered the Americas. Btw it's also disingenuous to not acknowledge that the most important part of the transatlantic slave trade was started by the Africans selling their captured enemies to the Europeans in the first place. Okay so what's wrong with condemning Arab countries for what they do wrong? Is it also wrong to disagree on certain points? Also why does a government need to apologize for the whole affair when it got rid of the institution? Btw America is completely exempt from your second edit because they both changed their constitution and I don't think there's any apology better than spilling the blood of your own for the freedom of another.
    2
  23.  @mrconfusion87  I think there's a good point to discuss about how the people are compared to how the government is and that the government will often have a very small direct influence on the people especially on foreigners. Like the government casually disappearing 20 people (usually political dissidents) is bad and would show that its authoritarian but if you're one of the other hundreds of millions of people you really aren't going to notice much unless for whatever reason you get a target on you.
    2
  24. Sounds like Europe has already fallen and America is just the last holdout with a strong revolt against the decadence. And the middle east and China are basically trying to find their footing to become players on the world stage again in barbarism.
    2
  25. 38:21 Jordan Peterson becoming a new Marx for the young man of today makes sense given he never actually led anyone either but people took it and ran with it as far as it could go.
    2
  26. @Pierre-Olivier Jolin Yeah no I have to disagree. Chinese are boxed in and they're still going to have to deal with their own supply lines. And the numbers start to even out once you take the population of the whole NATO alliance vs an Eastern one. However those supply lines will also be incredibly difficult since how are you going to try to push through Siberia with modern supply trains and even just modern forces? There's a reason Russia hasn't been threatened from the East since it got to the pacific and it isn't just because China was weak. Japan would've never made it to Moscow even at its height just because it's Siberia. Just no infrastructure all through there to use. On top of that... realistically China doesn't want to fight Europe anyway and the Russians and Chinese are nowhere near strong enough allies to let troops within each other's borders except under heavy surveillance. It just isn't realistic and frankly it's the same complaint I have about China invading through Pakistan: where would it get the supply through? Just doesn't work. Also as an addendum: barrier between China and Russia in Manchuria is also mountainous.
    2
  27. @Pierre-Olivier Jolin While the geography is literally the same, the interactions with said geography have changed. And frankly, this is the point here when it comes to moving armies through the Steppe. It's a VERY long way through not great terrain and poor infrastructure not conducive to moving supplies and men and without really means to get those things over very well.
    2
  28. Oh yeah that's about how he's described it before
    2
  29. Yeah but what "wrong opinions" would there be here? It's about a civilization and how it acted with the end message saying that it's a very open one. So not sure what the issue would be here.
    2
  30. I think the most interesting characteristics about the west is how it believes itself to be so morally superior that they genuinely cannot come to grips with the fact that they've not lived up to an artificial standard and feel that being better than most of the world is a blemish upon their moral record. In contrast, the saddest thing about the colonial leaders is that they do their best to divest themselves of all blame by blaming their problems on the west, and use its own moral system against it for freebies and as a scapegoat so that they don't have to improve. At which point my only question becomes: "When do these societies eventually take responsibility for themselves and stop blaming their parents for their own mistakes, and accept what they gave them?" Finally, i think the most interesting part about colonization was that it was basically impossible to control and most often looked more like inter-tribal warfare, wars among local lords, or simply normal business ventures, than any specific efforts by the governments of these empires.
    2
  31.  @georgefloydsfake20dollarbi28  While the clovis culture is a very strong influence and something he referenced, they have found some issues with this where there's no idea why certain DNA strands are found there and apparently there were some people there before the clovis culture. They have come to dominate a lot of the gene pool, however there's a lot more mixing that has come into play like he said. I happened to do a little digging myself out of pure curiosity recently. Native Americans are very difficult to nail down for a variety of reasons but one of them is the fact that the tribes didn't really share all of the same genetics and why you can find absolutely none of that ancestry but the other person did.
    2
  32.  @perthdude21  I mean... nature and nurture. It's the genetic inclination. It seems that it's probably true enough but clearly isn't the end-all-be-all. I mean the Indo-Aryan group should theoretically carry in it the same amounts but for cultural reasons went on very different tracts. Nurture determines which genes manifest in a lot of ways. Also he did say "some tribes" so it could easily be the Comanches or Caribe compared to like the Taino people.
    2
  33. If you want to gain an understanding of American politics first thing you need to realize is that international or EU level politics for you is the same level as national politics for the US. Local politics are always more diverse.
    2
  34. Yeah Miami actually has a lot of that same bill
    2
  35. I think my only issue with this comment is that put in context I'm wholly confused to if your initial statement is simply a part of using the same format in a counter-point or a real position you hold.
    2
  36.  @Wackaz  Which countries which have embraced socialism are actually happier? Please don't point toward the northern European countries which are A: not socialist and B: more have a social sigma against unhappiness. There's also the trends of suicide and other such matters which if you've looked closely mirrors more from the death of any sort of lived philosophy. The takeover of more atheistic values and generation of historic wealth (which you're lying to yourself if you say it isn't as a direct result of market system and its growth from the industrial revolution) which makes actual struggle in life almost gone. Humans which have lived generations struggling to even feed themselves have never really had the time to develop depression and other such issues. And there's a direct correlation in states between wealth and suicide currently where you don't see any of the massive suicide rates in poorer countries (which also tend to have a proper religion). Vietnam may be "much happier" but also live in a semi-opressive regime where you can't criticize the government. Happiness indexes are also more metrics at how acceptable it is to be unhappy as I alluded to earlier. The actual communes of Vietnam being the happiest parts of society is also very disingenuous as a commune is largely a small area with a small group who lives together on a patch of land and might as well be an extended family which have historically been quite happy for thousands of years with little they actually do besides work their living. The fall of an actual culture in much of these societies is much of the reason for their current situations and not really related to capitalism. Capitalism is just a means of building wealth which thus brings prosperity by allowing people to engage in the FREE movement of goods and labor. Socialism is the exact opposite of that and much of what it does is simply redistribute wealth from those who genuinely generate it and then misallocate resources to produce things inefficiently. There's good reason that every government which has been explicitly against capitalism eventually moved back toward it. You cannot have an industrial society without Capitalism as you're attempting to supplant a system with one which isn't built for it which is why despite Marx's prediction the revolution would come in western Europe, largely came in the un-industrialized countries such as the ones in Asia (Russia too) which also used it as a way to expand the revolutions against their previous shitty governments. I think the only real evidence of "capitalism killing millions" is in bengal with the domination of the east India company who ruled the county as a company. Which is generally a no-no as a rule and directly led to its regulation. Every other case of people starving is almost entirely from governments who want it for a political reason or are using it in such a misallocating of resources as to be negligence so bad it's malice. Oh also you're an absolute LIAR if you're saying Vietnam is still progressing toward socialism when they're arguably embracing capitalism more than ever before with its expanding economy. You're also an absolute liar for saying Cuba is happy when we just recently had a VIRAL movement of Cuba attempting to get its freedom. They aren't happy. They're controlled. As an aside: You used fascism wrong and so I know you don't actually know what it is beyond something you don't like and you're the type to in the 1940s call the soviets Fascist to try to defend that socialism isn't an oppressive system inherently. If you're a Marxist and a Historian with being an economist you have something fundamentally wrong with your thinking either missing key details or ignoring them for ideological purposes. Marx can be forgiven for inventing it and not seeing what the trend is at this point in time. If you currently think that it's at all applicable in this point in time you need to re-evaluate your view of at the very least economics. It's also disingenuous to say war is from learning from ourselves. That's an idealistic and honestly idiotic view of why we're at peace. We're at peace because of the major powers of the world were to wage war we'd be subject to nuclear annihilation decimating everyone equally. NOTHING else is the reason. It's the equivalent of the biggest gun ever. It's the equivalent of giving two people guns and then saying if the other shoots, you have a way to kill them regardless so you just both lose. War has winners and losers. Nukes don't.
    2
  37. No matter what manpower is required to occupy a country and solidify gains. Even if they just walk in, that part is important. It's how you hold territory. It's how you have a Frontline.
    2
  38. You know... really all you need is a lot of will and a WHOLE lot of blood to do that. Or to find many who are like minded and start going.
    2
  39. So we've got one near east power, two middle east powers, two east African powers, and a European power which controls west Africa and possibly contends for the Mediterranean with the Near Eastern power. I'll be honest France and Turkey just sound like old rivals who took a break for a generation coming back for more. Edit: I just looked at the fact that France helps supply the Turkish military and it may be more of a partnership
    2
  40. I don't think it really is. In some capacity they're are examples of society responding to the traumas of what they experienced, but even with the Native Americans much of that was caused by simply having no cultural controls on the new western developments and lifestyles. It's also the fact that depression is a phenomenon primarily driven by the middle to late 20th century. Where as before you were raised to have enough hardship to grow accustomed and adapt accordingly, much of the west simply hasn't from that period. I think the lens of depression may be from the extreme potency which it has since manifested in modern society.
    2
  41. That comment about African diseases is but one more piece of evidence that Africa really was our natural ecosystem. And then we left to advance without dying.
    2
  42. Considering the way he's described some of the issues with crisis coming, this quote seems like half of his videos lol
    2
  43.  @XxOrangesoda2610xX  so am I
    2
  44. Most bad things are usually a result of the government. Or military in war (an arm of the government). Trusting your government is the same as trusting the guy with the gun pointed at you. The only difference is that sometimes you have the option of changing who's behind the gun. And everything in that metaphor is completely literal.
    2
  45. Tbh it's 100 million people with a culture of fighting off invasions with insane fever and probably a lot of US foreign aid. It seems like a quick way to make an effective army very quickly. I'd equate it to the Koreans who in the Vietnam War outperformed the US troops in pure ferocity and brutality. China is a bad neighbor and you only survive by being incredibly good at fighting which is what the Vietnamese have become.
    2
  46.  @jacksonsmiler8028  There's a Caribbean plate IIRC
    2
  47. @James Furey Except with the way you describe is in no way the case. I intentionally said it of a very narrow purview that you are trying to expand more than is true. It is not cultural homogenization (and in fact the internet will likely heterogenize it as disparate groups and people's can congregate more easily who share some characteristic), but it is lingual slight homogenization. In real terms it's more lingual entrenchment. The reason languages shift, change, and are created new are due to being separated from the mother tongue for some reason for some time. Thus, whatever patterns existed beforehand are magnified as there is no longer a connection to keep them from moving on. However, if you record the languages audibly, such changes won't occur as you are going to grow up listening to that version of the language and that'll be your version of the language. Before it was the slight change people had as generations went onward and people moved or interacted differently. Now, you'll basically hear the language as it was and likely grow up on that. It's also that you have a larger community to interact with and thus more connection to the mother tongue on a massive scale. NOTE: None of this applies to culture. These are rules exclusive to language. These are rules exclusive to how people speak. Not how they act or interact with their general environment which creates and changes culture.
    2
  48.  @sandraleiva1633  No it hasn't. You've missed core principles. I said "civilization state" as in singular. Also the mixing with the native cultures of our Spanish ancestors ended up creating things which were significantly different from the homeland. Not only that, but we also fractured among many different political lines. So many political lines we almost wiped Paraguay because he tried to be Napoleon while not leading France. Not only that, but the Anglosphere primarily is one of outside settlers so it integrated people on its own terms not so much creating an entirely new ethnic group via "marrying" the native women after killing and enslaving the men... and the women.
    2
  49. He's going over roughly the region not being exact
    2
  50. 24:20 This is accurate. China uncensored did a video on it and basically it's a purge of the faction still aligned with the previous chairman who still holds a lot of power. Honestly it seems like Xi is trying to become the next Maou at least in my eyes.
    2