Comments by "John Roberts" (@view1st) on "The Burning Archive" channel.

It seems a reasonable analysis but I fear it will be longer than a decade.
10
I'd have used the term benevolent neutrality. From benevolent neutrality to bellicose support of the empire.
1
No room for complacency! We have to do something now because tomorrow might be too late. These things work out over decades so, no, we can't wait until 50 years in the future to do something. A pro-fertility, pro-natalist approach must be adopted NOW! To hell with women's rights, men's rights: the future of the human race is at stake; it is an existential decision that cannot be left to selfish individual choice (individualism) because what's good for the individual is NOT, in this case at least, good for society. Not good at all! I'd have thought this would have been apparent to Asian societies like Japan, Korea and China but, strangely, these group-orientated, statist countries that you would expect to be most active in promoting healthy population growth/stabilisation are, paradoxically, the ones with the fastest declining populations. If the Chinese can force women not to have children then they should be able to force them to have children. Coercion was used by the Chinese in their anti-family campaigns and so they can just as easily use coercion to promote population growth. If men and women don't want children they should be made to have them, mutatis mutandis/ceteris paribus.
1
Do you want the human race to commit suicide just because of our supposed negative impact on the environment? You come across to me as a sort of traitor to your own species. As people live increasingly in cities there will be more than enough free land for other animals to exist. Indeed the areas outside the cities might even become nature reserves or some such.
1
The USA adopted the same Keynesian pump priming of their economy that the Germans used in the 1930's. And we all know where that led.
1
Israel attacked the Palestinians and has been doing so for decades. It occupies Palestinian lands. So realistically it is more a case of Palestinians defending themselves from Israeli violence. Also, as the attack on Israel (actually Palestinians attacking an invader) was a false flag makes the implicit premises of your argument an exercise in futility.
1
@OrwellsHousecat Terrorism is not an ideology. Terrorism is a method. — And what you seem to be saying goes against common sense: addressing legitimate grievances is the best way – the only way – to right wrongs and prevent dissatisfaction turning into violence.
1
But Ukraine never had nuclear weapons, they were Russia's. So it is a moot point.
1
I think that you are seeing things through the ethnocentric lens of a the USA. If you consider the supporters of the Democrat Party or what are called liberals more generally 'the left' then I think you're mistaken. Both sides are capitalists/corporatists. To describe what passes for the left as a genuine left wing in the USA is like saying Ernst Rohm's Brown Shirts were the left in Germany. They might have been to the left of Hitler but genuinely left... seriously‽
1
India just trundles on.
1
I don't think the USA so much 'won' as Russia basically decided it didn't want to play the game by the USA's rules anymore so it started playing by new rules – it's own – and like China, after initial trials and tribulations, began to prosper and seems now to be slowly gaining ground over its rival. Ironically, the USA is 'winning' this war against itself by doing what it did so successfully against the Soviet Union. That is, it's going bankrupt. I suppose this is where the phrase 'going for broke' really comes from. The Keynesian pump-priming of its military‐industrial economy, a system pioneered by the National Socialists of Germany during the 1930's, is finally running out of road. It didn't turn out well for them and it looks like it's not turning out well for the USA either. A war economy ultimately based on fiat currency and deficit spending not only causes inflation but runs out of low hanging fruit to conquer. Like the Roman empire, once it's reached the limits of what it can expand into and new loot is no longer coming in can no longer sustain itself. The USA has met those limits in the form of China, Russia and India: it can no longer conquer with impunity and exploit the resources of the conquered without coming up directly against those aforementioned countries, states at least as powerful as itself. As Karl Marx noted more than a century ago, under capitalism the rate of profit tends to drop as time goes by necessating capital seeking out new returns on investment (i.e. infinite growth). Unfortunately, the USA cannot grow using the existing model, one made worse because the kind of capitalism the USA is using is primarily based on rentierism – parasitizing the capital gains made by others rather than making and using it's own. The rentier eventually runs out of other people's money.
1
I think you have misidentified the wrong class here. Don't you mean the aristocracy (or I suppose in modern terms the oligarchy)? They are the ones who hold real power, not the bourgeoisie who remain the servant class. The aristocracy/oligarchy have always resorted to behaviour that would be considered criminal when committed by ordinary folk and you don't have to invoke the lumpen proletariat to explain that. Just think about the European knights of the middle ages, they stood at the top of the feudal food chain yet were the very embodiment of organised violence against peasant revolts. I think you are misunderstanding what Marx meant by the phrase 'the Lumpen Proletariat'. In my understanding of the term he was referring to the criminal class – the prison population – as distinct from the general proletariat in having no class consciousness and thus indifferent to class struggle, as a result being basically a lost cause as far as instilling revolutionary spirit in them was concerned. I agree that we are currently ruled by a corrupt elite, but then elites have always been corrupt by the standards of the general population. You can scarcely be a member of an elite without being in some sense corrupt. Nothing in that regard has changed. The only thing that might have changed is that the level of corruption has now become so pervasive, blatant and out of control that it threatens to undermine society.
1