Comments by "craxd1" (@craxd1) on "Lotuseaters Dot Com" channel.

  1. 80
  2. 63
  3. 49
  4. 42
  5. 41
  6. 40
  7. 35
  8. 33
  9. 22
  10. 21
  11. 20
  12. 19
  13. 18
  14. 16
  15. 16
  16. 16
  17. 15
  18. 15
  19. 14
  20. 11
  21. 11
  22. 11
  23. 11
  24. 10
  25. 10
  26. 8
  27. 8
  28. 7
  29. 7
  30. 7
  31. 7
  32. 7
  33. 6
  34. 6
  35. 6
  36. 5
  37. 5
  38. 5
  39. 5
  40. 4
  41. 4
  42. How the people are duped into the Soviet or Nazi type of thinking is shown below, and it's sourced from MIT. "The quote cited [below] does not appear in transcripts of the Nuremberg trials because although Goering spoke these words during the course of the proceedings, he did not offer them at his trial. His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book Nuremberg Diary . The quote offered [below] was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess: "Sweating in his cell in the evening, Goering was defensive and deflated and not very happy over the turn the trial was taking. He said that he had no control over the actions or the defense of the others, and that he had never been anti-Semitic himself, had not believed these atrocities, and that several Jews had offered to testify in his behalf. If [Hans] Frank [Governor-General of occupied Poland] had known about atrocities in 1943, he should have come to him and he would have tried to do something about it. He might not have had enough power to change things in 1943, but if somebody had come to him in 1941 or 1942 he could have forced a showdown. (I still did not have the desire at this point to tell him what [SS General Otto] Ohlendorf had said to this: that Goering had been written off as an effective "moderating" influence, because of his drug addiction and corruption.) I pointed out that with his "temperamental utterances," such as preferring the killing of 200 Jews to the destruction of property, he had hardly set himself up as champion of minority rights. Goering protested that too much weight was being put on these temperamental utterances. Furthermore, he made it clear that he was not defending or glorifying Hitler. "Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders: "We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction. "'Why, of course, the people don't want war,' Goering shrugged. 'Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.' "'There is one difference,' I pointed out. 'In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.' "'Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.'"
    4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. Did you ever wonder if the activists are as numerous as they are claimed to be by the media and some in gov? Is their movement as really as large as it's made out to be, by some, or is it really only a small percentage of society that's magnified by using propaganda? No, America is far from gone, believe me, as many of us have noticed that the claims of a giant uprising isn't true, and it's only to be found in small pockets. At that, many activists travel in from elsewhere to cause their chaos in the states it's not found in. Now, we've begun asking why that is. I would about bet that you will find a similar thing in Britain. One can consider the Anglo tribes, the Americans and the British, as two political tribes that are, or were, close to the same that are built upon liberalism, individualism, and capitalism, which are competing against several other tribes of different beliefs around the globe. What the activists seem to hate are the values of these two nations. Ask yourself why. Green-eyed... TIK has some of the better historical videos about the history of socialism and communism, and they explain much, especially why many left-wing activists are anti-Semitic, since they see the Jews as the fathers of capitalism, liberalism, and individuality, though that's not really true. That hatred was in both Marx and Engels' own words, as well as in the Soviets, and the NSDAP, too. Now, after WWII, think about the differing socialist tribes agreeing to mix their old ideologies together, and trying to bring about a new form of it. The socialists knew, after a while, that the only way to do so was by revolution and lies, because, even then, they didn't have the people to pull it off in much of the west.
    2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. They had started experimenting with opium, and what became Laudanum, in the sixteenth century. By the time of the Civil War, in the US, they also had Morphine (1820s), but the supply was sometimes low, thus, you got the patient drunk on whiskey before surgery. They also had chloroform at that time, but, again, the supply needed wasn't enough. "The most influential work [on opium] was by George Young, who published a comprehensive medical text entitled Treatise on Opium (1753). Young, an Edinburgh surgeon and physician, wrote this to counter an essay on opium by his contemporary Charles Alston, professor of botany and materia medica at Edinburgh, who had recommended the use of opium for a wide variety of conditions. Young countered this by emphasising the risks '...that I may prevent such mischief as I can, I here give it as my sincere opinion... that opium is a poison by which great numbers are daily destroyed.' Young gives a comprehensive account of the indications for the drug, including its complications. He is critical about writers whose knowledge of the drug is based on chemical or animal experiments rather than clinical practice. The treatise is a detailed, balanced, and valuable guide to prevailing knowledge and practice. As it gained popularity, opium, and after 1820, morphine, was mixed with a wide variety of agents, drugs, and chemicals including mercury, hashish, cayenne pepper, ether, chloroform, belladonna, whiskey, wine, and brandy."__Wiki on Laudanum. During the Opium Wars, both the US and UK knew of the practical medical uses of opium, especially the Scots. The Civil War was what caused the great addiction to opioids, which, eventually, brought about the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1915.
    1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. 1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1