|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 26, 2020 19:52:55 GMT
Ironically I was reading a review of THE GREAT DICTATOR and someone took Chaplin to task for not including Uncle Joe Stalin among those he was critiquing.
Stalin Burned 100s of 1000s of Russian Peasants' Homes, But Everyone Blames Germany - Another WW2 Anti-German Slander Goes Up in Smoke
Very few people know the detail of Joseph Stalin’s notorious Torch-Man Order. As a consequence people little realise that images depicting German atrocities are falsified. Filmed atrocities were the responsibility not of the Reich, but of England and America’s Soviet allies. There can be no excuse for using images of one’s own crimes to stigmatise one’s enemy. To do so to justify war is a war crime. The banality of evil is that the Torch-Man Order is censored in the West and disguised behind the bland index Order Number #0428.
The detail of this disreputable Order is confirmed as accurate by the Russian government. Stalin’s Order #0428 authorised November 17, 1941, instructed Bolshevik irregulars to destroy everything within 40 to 60 kilometres of the rapidly advancing German forces.
Stalin’s burnt earth policy was not what is claimed to be a strategy of depriving the Axis armies of sustenance. Stalin realised that communities terrorised by the Bolsheviks over twenty-five years welcomed the invading Reich armies as liberators. Churchill’s ally also knew that upon liberation entire Central European communities would assist the German occupiers. In Stalin’s eyes, the peasantry were already collaborators.
The Order’s purpose was to indiscriminately slaughter communities before their being caught up in the German advance. The Order gave specific instruction that trained irregulars, wearing uniforms of captured and killed German troops, would indiscriminately kill peasants on an industrial scale. Especially sought for this purpose were uniforms of the Waffen SS.
Western media claims such suggestion is Nazi propaganda. This begs three questions:
1) The Reich controlled Europe between Moscow, Finland and the Black Sea. Why were these atrocities carried out only on Soviet territories before their being occupied by the Reich?
2) Why would any army film and widely distribute images of atrocities that would reflect badly on them and later indict them on war crime charges?
3) Where is the logic in an advancing army destroying its means of sustenance and support as it advances? These are questions of logic that simply cannot be answered in a way that would support victors’ spin. For such reasons open debate by Western media is off-limits.
In fact, the German policy was precisely the opposite to that of Britain and America’s ally. The function of the Reich’s Ostacker Program (Eastern Fields Program) was to restore the lands and return rural property to the peoples of the regions occupied by the German forces: (Archive Series 429, roller 461, General Use Division, Foreign Units East li H 3/70 Fri 6,439,568th Filed: National Archives Washington).
The Torch-Man order signed by Stalin was released by the Russian government. The Order specifically carries instruction that it was ‘important to leave a few survivors who would report the supposed German terror attacks’. This strategy was confirmed by Axis troops who, having taken into captivity partisans wearing Reich uniforms, conceded their reason for doing so.
Order Number #0428 is quite specific and uncontested:
All settlements, in which German troops are found, up to a depth of 40 60km from the main lines of battle, are to be destroyed and set on fire; so too all such situated 20-30km from the roads. For the total destruction of the settled areas, the Soviet Air Force will be made available. Artillery and rocket launchers will be used extensively, as well as intelligence units’ skiers and Partisan divisions equipped with bottles with flammable liquid. These hunting expeditions in their activities of destruction are to be dressed to the greatest extent in German soldier’s uniforms and uniforms of the Waffen SS looted from the German Army.
This will ignite hatred toward all fascist occupiers and make the conscription of partisans from the outlying areas of fascist territories easier. It is important to have survivors who will tell about German atrocities. For this purpose, every regiment is to form hunter units of about 20-30 men strong with the task to detonate and incinerate the villages.
We have to select brave fighters for this action of destruction of settled areas. These men will be especially recommended to receive bravery awards when working in German uniforms behind enemy lines and destroying those settlement outposts. Among the population spread the rumour the Germans are burning the villages in order to punish the partisans.
The images distributed by the Soviets and their American and British allies depict graveside images of captives being shot in the back of the head. This method of execution was exclusively a Soviet CHEKA / NKVD method of mass killings. The forces of the Reich used conventional means to dispose of those marked for execution and did so within the constraints of international law.
Cui Bono (the legal term for ‘who benefits?): Again, logic suggests that only the Soviets would benefit from carrying out, photographing, filming and distributing images of these atrocities. The intention was to create an anti-Reich psychosis and encourage partisan recruitment. The strategy was also useful in providing the Soviets Western allies with propaganda that would assist their war against the Workers Reich. In other words, these crimes are solely and exclusively the responsibility not of Hitler’s Germany but of the Soviet Union, England and the United States.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 27, 2020 14:49:48 GMT
Another WW2 Anti-German Slander Goes Up in Smoke
I really hope this isn't going to be the lead-in to some type of Holocaust denial agitprop.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 27, 2020 15:02:22 GMT
Another WW2 Anti-German Slander Goes Up in SmokeI really hope this isn't going to be the lead-in to some type of Holocaust denial agitprop. It's popular on those sites like Stormfront or 20thcenturytruth so yes that might had been the intention.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 27, 2020 21:27:41 GMT
Another WW2 Anti-German Slander Goes Up in SmokeI really hope this isn't going to be the lead-in to some type of Holocaust denial agitprop. It's popular on those sites like Stormfront or 20thcenturytruth so yes that might had been the intention. Yeah, the phrase "WWII Anti-German Slander" is pretty much a dead giveaway . You have to wonder why these types of forums attract this type of nutter like flies. It isn't as if they don't already have--alas--too many online forums at hand where they can post this dreck to their hearts content.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 28, 2020 9:15:25 GMT
Ironically I was reading a review of THE GREAT DICTATOR and someone took Chaplin to task for not including Uncle Joe Stalin among those he was critiquing.
Stalin Burned 100s of 1000s of Russian Peasants' Homes, But Everyone Blames Germany - Another WW2 Anti-German Slander Goes Up in Smoke
Very few people know the detail of Joseph Stalin’s notorious Torch-Man Order. As a consequence people little realise that images depicting German atrocities are falsified. Filmed atrocities were the responsibility not of the Reich, but of England and America’s Soviet allies. There can be no excuse for using images of one’s own crimes to stigmatise one’s enemy. To do so to justify war is a war crime. The banality of evil is that the Torch-Man Order is censored in the West and disguised behind the bland index Order Number #0428.
The detail of this disreputable Order is confirmed as accurate by the Russian government. Stalin’s Order #0428 authorised November 17, 1941, instructed Bolshevik irregulars to destroy everything within 40 to 60 kilometres of the rapidly advancing German forces.
Stalin’s burnt earth policy was not what is claimed to be a strategy of depriving the Axis armies of sustenance. Stalin realised that communities terrorised by the Bolsheviks over twenty-five years welcomed the invading Reich armies as liberators. Churchill’s ally also knew that upon liberation entire Central European communities would assist the German occupiers. In Stalin’s eyes, the peasantry were already collaborators.
The Order’s purpose was to indiscriminately slaughter communities before their being caught up in the German advance. The Order gave specific instruction that trained irregulars, wearing uniforms of captured and killed German troops, would indiscriminately kill peasants on an industrial scale. Especially sought for this purpose were uniforms of the Waffen SS.
Western media claims such suggestion is Nazi propaganda. This begs three questions:
1) The Reich controlled Europe between Moscow, Finland and the Black Sea. Why were these atrocities carried out only on Soviet territories before their being occupied by the Reich?
2) Why would any army film and widely distribute images of atrocities that would reflect badly on them and later indict them on war crime charges?
3) Where is the logic in an advancing army destroying its means of sustenance and support as it advances? These are questions of logic that simply cannot be answered in a way that would support victors’ spin. For such reasons open debate by Western media is off-limits.
In fact, the German policy was precisely the opposite to that of Britain and America’s ally. The function of the Reich’s Ostacker Program (Eastern Fields Program) was to restore the lands and return rural property to the peoples of the regions occupied by the German forces: (Archive Series 429, roller 461, General Use Division, Foreign Units East li H 3/70 Fri 6,439,568th Filed: National Archives Washington).
The Torch-Man order signed by Stalin was released by the Russian government. The Order specifically carries instruction that it was ‘important to leave a few survivors who would report the supposed German terror attacks’. This strategy was confirmed by Axis troops who, having taken into captivity partisans wearing Reich uniforms, conceded their reason for doing so.
Order Number #0428 is quite specific and uncontested:
All settlements, in which German troops are found, up to a depth of 40 60km from the main lines of battle, are to be destroyed and set on fire; so too all such situated 20-30km from the roads. For the total destruction of the settled areas, the Soviet Air Force will be made available. Artillery and rocket launchers will be used extensively, as well as intelligence units’ skiers and Partisan divisions equipped with bottles with flammable liquid. These hunting expeditions in their activities of destruction are to be dressed to the greatest extent in German soldier’s uniforms and uniforms of the Waffen SS looted from the German Army.
This will ignite hatred toward all fascist occupiers and make the conscription of partisans from the outlying areas of fascist territories easier. It is important to have survivors who will tell about German atrocities. For this purpose, every regiment is to form hunter units of about 20-30 men strong with the task to detonate and incinerate the villages.
We have to select brave fighters for this action of destruction of settled areas. These men will be especially recommended to receive bravery awards when working in German uniforms behind enemy lines and destroying those settlement outposts. Among the population spread the rumour the Germans are burning the villages in order to punish the partisans.
The images distributed by the Soviets and their American and British allies depict graveside images of captives being shot in the back of the head. This method of execution was exclusively a Soviet CHEKA / NKVD method of mass killings. The forces of the Reich used conventional means to dispose of those marked for execution and did so within the constraints of international law.
Cui Bono (the legal term for ‘who benefits?): Again, logic suggests that only the Soviets would benefit from carrying out, photographing, filming and distributing images of these atrocities. The intention was to create an anti-Reich psychosis and encourage partisan recruitment. The strategy was also useful in providing the Soviets Western allies with propaganda that would assist their war against the Workers Reich. In other words, these crimes are solely and exclusively the responsibility not of Hitler’s Germany but of the Soviet Union, England and the United States.
They did but since the Nazis put ideology above reality and treated them as bad if not worse than the Soviets, they turned against the Nazis pretty soon.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 28, 2020 13:35:08 GMT
They did but since the Nazis put ideology above reality and treated them as bad if not worse than the Soviets, they turned against the Nazis pretty soon. I dont see the evidence that the Germans treated the villagers worse than the Soviets who implemented the Torch man policy. And what about Operation Keelhaul? Those that fought with the Germans were sent back to be killed by the Soviets--do you think they felt the Germans treated them worse than the Soviets in those cases? I don't think so. This also verifies Patton's diary comments that he had never seen an army as savage as the Soviet one. Putting on the uniform of your enemy in order to attack your own countrymen is pretty low.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 28, 2020 13:38:41 GMT
After a visit to ruined Berlin, Patton wrote his wife on July 21, 1945: "Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race, and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all Europe will be communist. It's said that for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed."
His diary entry for August 18 quotes Gen. Juin: "It is indeed unfortunate, mon General, that the English and the Americans have destroyed in Europe the only sound country - and I do not mean France. Therefore, the road is now open for the advent of Russian communism."
Later diary entries and letters to his wife reiterate this same conclusion. On August 31 he wrote: "Actually, the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. it's a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans." And on September 2: "What we are doing is to destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe, so that Russia can swallow the whole."
"They have utterly lost the Anglo-Saxon conception of justice and feel that a man can be kicked out because somebody else says he is a Nazi. They were evidently quite shocked when I told them I would kick nobody out without the successful proof of guilt before a court of law . . .
And in a letter of the same date to his wife: "I will probably be in the headlines before you get this, as the press is trying to quote me as being more interested in restoring order in Germany than in catching Nazis. I can't tell them the truth that unless we restore Germany we will insure that communism takes America."
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 28, 2020 13:42:44 GMT
They did but since the Nazis put ideology above reality and treated them as bad if not worse than the Soviets, they turned against the Nazis pretty soon. I dont see the evidence that the Germans treated the villagers worse than the Soviets who implemented the Torch man policy. And what about Operation Keelhaul? Those that fought with the Germans were sent back to be killed by the Soviets--do you think they felt the Germans treated them worse than the Soviets in those cases? I don't think so. This also verifies Patton's diary comments that he had never seen an army as savage as the Soviet one. Putting on the uniform of your enemy in order to attack your own countrymen is pretty low.
You don't see the evidence of mass deportations and executions? The Nazis wanted the people living there moved out and replaced with German settlers. That's why they soons started resistance movements that fought against the Nazis.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 28, 2020 14:41:05 GMT
You don't see the evidence of mass deportations and executions? The Nazis wanted the people living there moved out and replaced with German settlers. That's why they soons started resistance movements that fought against the Nazis. How is that worse than the supposed government of the Russian territory attacking their own people-especially the majority ethnic population? This is supposed to be their own government. And it still doesn't explain why so many Soviet-occupied people wanted to fight with the Germans against the USSR. I have to assume they considered the Communists worse.
This is the basic difference I see between fascism and communism. Fascism is a system where an ethnic group-a majority usually-makes choices based on what they think is in the best interest of their majority tribe. Communism IS the opposite--a minority governs a society where the best interests of the majority are ignored if not outright attacked. This is why Communism cannot ever work. It is parasitic and entirely unhealthy in social policy. Fascism as a political system may be impossible to implement or survive as well, but it is more socially grounded.
The Zulu tribe is closer to fascist than communist (indeed, a foreign minister for the Zulus said they believed Communism ruined Russia). What we see today is that Patton was right-Communism took America. How do we know? We just had an open communist who defended the USSR and its mass murdering ways-Sanders, running as a mainstream political candidate. That's how far communism has come.
Even something as trivial as wanting to replace James Bond with a black actor is a gesture born of communism. There is NO other reason to do it but for expressing communist ideology.
So they were claiming to embrace racial tolerance at the same time they were abusing or killing millions in their own territory? Moral priorities?
The fact that one cannot even criticize the Soviet Union today without being labelled a Nazi is more proof that we are going into the Orwellian Big Brother wrongspeak realm.
It is possible to be neither a card-carrying fascist or a communist, but it seems as soon as one makes any criticism of the USSR it means you are a Nazi (which is further proof of the Communist takeover).
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 28, 2020 15:03:30 GMT
You don't see the evidence of mass deportations and executions? The Nazis wanted the people living there moved out and replaced with German settlers. That's why they soons started resistance movements that fought against the Nazis. How is that worse than the supposed government of the Russian territory attacking their own people-especially the majority ethnic population? This is supposed to be their own government. And it still doesn't explain why so many Soviet-occupied people wanted to fight with the Germans against the USSR. I have to assume they considered the Communists worse.
This is the basic difference I see between fascism and communism. Fascism is a system where an ethnic group-a majority usually-makes choices based on what they think is in the best interest of their majority tribe. Communism IS the opposite--a minority governs a society where the best interests of the majority are ignored if not outright attacked. This is why Communism cannot ever work. It is parasitic and entirely unhealthy in social policy. Fascism as a political system may be impossible to implement or survive as well, but it is more socially grounded.
The Zulu tribe is closer to fascist than communist (indeed, a foreign minister for the Zulus said they believed Communism ruined Russia). What we see today is that Patton was right-Communism took America. How do we know? We just had an open communist who defended the USSR and its mass murdering ways-Sanders, running as a mainstream political candidate. That's how far communism has come.
Even something as trivial as wanting to replace James Bond with a black actor is a gesture born of communism. There is NO other reason to do it but for expressing communist ideology.
So they were claiming to embrace racial tolerance at the same time they were abusing or killing millions in their own territory? Moral priorities?
The fact that one cannot even criticize the Soviet Union today without being labelled a Nazi is more proof that we are going into the Orwellian Big Brother wrongspeak realm.
It is possible to be neither a card-carrying fascist or a communist, but it seems as soon as one makes any criticism of the USSR it means you are a Nazi (which is further proof of the Communist takeover).
Who said it was worse? I'm not defending the Soviet Union nor am I defending the Nazis. The implication that the Nazis were greeted as liberators while true leaves out the fact it didn't last long because the Nazis went and oppressed the people that they were "liberating". People that say communism took America either don't know what communism is or are lying. And if James Bond ends up being played by a black actor, that has nothing to do with communism.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 28, 2020 17:51:03 GMT
Who said it was worse? I'm not defending the Soviet Union nor am I defending the Nazis. The implication that the Nazis were greeted as liberators while true leaves out the fact it didn't last long because the Nazis went and oppressed the people that they were "liberating". People that say communism took America either don't know what communism is or are lying. And if James Bond ends up being played by a black actor, that has nothing to do with communism. You said it was worse.
Communism has steadily been building in the US since the 1940s.
I'd like to see the evidence that it isn't, especially since the most popular candidate for the Democrats was an open card carrying communist. Or the fact that even a Reagan-lite guy like Trump is labelled a fascist by the "capitalist" media.
James Bond as black is totally a communist kind of move. It is an action taken to defy traditions and against majority interests. Those making these decisions are not black either--so it isn't even an expression of black artists (since communist art does not make choices based on heritage or culture, just propaganda message). Hollywood these days is full of apparatchiks.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 28, 2020 19:11:27 GMT
Who said it was worse? I'm not defending the Soviet Union nor am I defending the Nazis. The implication that the Nazis were greeted as liberators while true leaves out the fact it didn't last long because the Nazis went and oppressed the people that they were "liberating". People that say communism took America either don't know what communism is or are lying. And if James Bond ends up being played by a black actor, that has nothing to do with communism. You said it was worse.
Communism has steadily been building in the US since the 1940s.
I'd like to see the evidence that it isn't, especially since the most popular candidate for the Democrats was an open card carrying communist. Or the fact that even a Reagan-lite guy like Trump is labelled a fascist by the "capitalist" media.
James Bond as black is totally a communist kind of move. It is an action taken to defy traditions and against majority interests. Those making these decisions are not black either--so it isn't even an expression of black artists (since communist art does not make choices based on heritage or culture, just propaganda message). Hollywood these days is full of apparatchiks.
I said they treated them as bad if not worse. No it hasn't. In fact since the 80's with Raegan and Clinton it has become more neoliberal. Ideas expoused by Milton Friedman and s Friedrich Hayek which were known for their support for free markets. I assume you mean Bernie Sanders but he's not a card carrying capitalist anymore than Trump is card carrying Nazi. Hell he's not even a socialist. He's social democrat. And look what th Democratic establishment has done to him. They rather a have neo liberal like Trump then Sanders. It's a movie. It's not a democracy. Money is what matters and if the black Bond movie was made and it failed at box office, they would replace him. That's why you're not getting a sequel for 2016 Ghostbusters movie. If it had been a sucess, they would be making sequels.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 28, 2020 19:28:25 GMT
No it hasn't. In fact since the 80's with Raegan and Clinton it has become more neoliberal. Ideas expoused by Milton Friedman and s Friedrich Hayek which were known for their support for free markets. I assume you mean Bernie Sanders but he's not a card carrying capitalist anymore than Trump is card carrying Nazi. Hell he's not even a socialist. He's social democrat. And look what th Democratic establishment has done to him. They rather a have neo liberal like Trump then Sanders. It's a movie. It's not a democracy. Money is what matters and if the black Bond movie was made and it failed at box office, they would replace him. That's why you're not getting a sequel for 2016 Ghostbusters movie. If it had been a sucess, they would be making sequels. Neo-liberalism at its core is the same as communism. Globalists believe in tearing down barriers to trade in other words destroying nationalism, just like communism. The Bush conservative would have been called a Red in 1960.
Communism is not a true ideology at its core--since it regards people as insects--it is based on merit-free decision making (it doesn't believe in putting the healthiest or the majority interest of a tribe/society in charge). The Bush cabinet was full of neo-conservatives who were described as former Trotsky liberals.
Hollywood is not run on merit or public taste-that's why they care more about China (from an old fashioned capitalist standpoint this makes no sense--it would be like making winter clothing for cold climates and then deciding to cater to the Sahara so the clothes becomes thinner---which does no good for those in colder climates!). To cater to China means ignoring the European audience.
No one wanted Ghostbusters 2016--no one asked for it. No one wanted an endless series of remakes and franchises--you may say this is capitalism but it isn't--it is merit-free decision making which is closer to communism.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 29, 2020 8:26:48 GMT
No it hasn't. In fact since the 80's with Raegan and Clinton it has become more neoliberal. Ideas expoused by Milton Friedman and s Friedrich Hayek which were known for their support for free markets. I assume you mean Bernie Sanders but he's not a card carrying capitalist anymore than Trump is card carrying Nazi. Hell he's not even a socialist. He's social democrat. And look what th Democratic establishment has done to him. They rather a have neo liberal like Trump then Sanders. It's a movie. It's not a democracy. Money is what matters and if the black Bond movie was made and it failed at box office, they would replace him. That's why you're not getting a sequel for 2016 Ghostbusters movie. If it had been a sucess, they would be making sequels. Neo-liberalism at its core is the same as communism. Globalists believe in tearing down barriers to trade in other words destroying nationalism, just like communism. The Bush conservative would have been called a Red in 1960.
Communism is not a true ideology at its core--since it regards people as insects--it is based on merit-free decision making (it doesn't believe in putting the healthiest or the majority interest of a tribe/society in charge). The Bush cabinet was full of neo-conservatives who were described as former Trotsky liberals.
Hollywood is not run on merit or public taste-that's why they care more about China (from an old fashioned capitalist standpoint this makes no sense--it would be like making winter clothing for cold climates and then deciding to cater to the Sahara so the clothes becomes thinner---which does no good for those in colder climates!). To cater to China means ignoring the European audience.
No one wanted Ghostbusters 2016--no one asked for it. No one wanted an endless series of remakes and franchises--you may say this is capitalism but it isn't--it is merit-free decision making which is closer to communism.
Neo liberalism being the same thing as communism makes about the same sense as monarchy being the same thing as a republic. Or the same sense as saying democracy is the same thing as a dictatorship or water being the same thing as fire. Or nationalism being the same thing as globalism. I wasn't talking about globalists. And globalism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Yeah usually they don't conduct polls to see what movies people will want to see. They usually take chances. Some of them payoff some of them don't. No one wanted an endless series of franchises? Is that why James Bond movies, MCU, DCEU, Star Wars Fast and Furious movies keep getting made? The majority of them makes enough money to warrant sequels. That's capitalism. Not communism.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 29, 2020 8:56:15 GMT
Or nationalism being the same thing as globalism. The majority of them makes enough money to warrant sequels. That's capitalism. Not communism. Hollywood Accounting means "we lie about business." Hollywood does not run a normal business and never has. Walt Disney did, because he didn't have as much money as other studios.
Studios that have no worries about money are not capitalist in the old fashioned Calvinist sense. They also get massive subsidies from taxpayers. How did Hollywood dominate when they were violating Edison's copyrights and patents? Because they started with more money than anyone else. That's not capitalism--they don't need profits to justify their existence. They have no competition, they won't let competition exist. You know what film industry operated like that? Mosfilm-in the USSR. Communism didn't disappear, it just changed its name to globalism (because brother and comrade was just the bullshit slogans they sold to people-as Lenin said, it was for the useful idiots).
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 29, 2020 8:58:38 GMT
Or nationalism being the same thing as globalism. The majority of them makes enough money to warrant sequels. That's capitalism. Not communism. Hollywood Accounting means "we lie about business." Hollywood does not run a normal business and never has. Walt Disney did, because he didn't have as much money as other studios.
Studios that have no worries about money are not capitalist in the old fashioned Calvinist sense. They also get massive subsidies from taxpayers. How did Hollywood dominate when they were violating Edison's copyrights and patents? Because they started with more money than anyone else. That's not capitalism--they don't need profits to justify their existence. They have no competition, they won't let competition exist. You know what film industry operated like that? Mosfilm-in the USSR. Communism didn't disappear, it just changed its name to globalism (because brother and comrade was just the bullshit slogans they sold to people-as Lenin said, it was for the useful idiots).
Since were using made up definitions, I will say that Walt Disney was a communist and so was Hitler. Btw all Nationalists are secretly globalists because that's how define globalism. It doens't make sense but it doesn't have to.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 29, 2020 15:02:20 GMT
Since were using made up definitions, I will say that Walt Disney was a communist and so was Hitler. Btw all Nationalists are secretly globalists because that's how define globalism. It doens't make sense but it doesn't have to. You have to go by actions not labels. Disney believed in heritage and nation states. He would be appalled beyond belief if he saw what was done to the company with his name. The vicious anti-European slant of it is definitely communist or globalist, not nationalist (Disney co does love China though).
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 29, 2020 15:10:39 GMT
Since were using made up definitions, I will say that Walt Disney was a communist and so was Hitler. Btw all Nationalists are secretly globalists because that's how define globalism. It doens't make sense but it doesn't have to. You have to go by actions not labels. Disney believed in heritage and nation states. He would be appalled beyond belief if he saw what was done to the company with his name. The vicious anti-European slant of it is definitely communist or globalist, not nationalist (Disney co does love China though).
If you go by actions you would see that most what you call globalism is actually about having a larger market and cheaper labour. It has nothing to do with the common ownership of the means of production which is what communism is. So it's actually capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 29, 2020 15:10:56 GMT
what the fucks going on within these parts.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 29, 2020 15:18:39 GMT
what the fucks going on within these parts. Nothing of import.
|
|