Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,932
@previous (C)
Not dogmatically, but he had a lot of good points that I agree with.
IMO borrowing LTV from Ricardo wasn't the best choice, and starting Capital with droll talk about yards of linen wasn't the best way to communicate the concept of surplus value.
Time traveler joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 49 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,966
@previous (D)
In the future after the war with Iran when Israel becomes less popular and people get less upset if you praise Hitler, internet edgelords like Nick Fuentes are going to start saying Osama Bin Laden was based instead of saying Hitler was based because it will have more shock value.
> In the future after the war with Iran when Israel becomes less popular and people get less upset if you praise Hitler, internet edgelords like Nick Fuentes are going to start saying Osama Bin Laden was based instead of saying Hitler was based because it will have more shock value.
Time traveler joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,971
@previous (D)
People usually don’t stay popular online more than 10 years. It depends on how much money he makes while he’s still relevant and whether or not he’s smart about not blowing it.
> People usually don’t stay popular online more than 10 years. It depends on how much money he makes while he’s still relevant and whether or not he’s smart about not blowing it. > > So probably homeless actually.
Exactly. Maybe that’s why they all go more and more extreme because relevance = continued attention.
Time traveler replied with this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,974
@previous (D)
Until their audience grows up. Except I think Nick Fuentes in particular is immune to that because you have to be developmentally stunted to think he’s worth listening to so his audience is effectively 14 years old until they die from cancer or heart failure.
Time traveler double-posted this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,975
Although from the clips I’ve seen it seems like even he despises the people who watch him. I’ve never seen someone so pissed off to get donations for blabbering on about their opinions lol.
Time traveler quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,977
Honestly I don’t think he’d make it under an actual nazi government. Imagine being in nazi germany, and being like, "Yes, I want to advocate for white people, but guys it’s not looking good, we’re gonna have to vote for the socialists. None of the policies the national socialist German workers party said they would implement have been implemented, there are still Jews everywhere, I don’t see mass deportations. We gotta vote for the socialists."
> Honestly I don’t think he’d make it under an actual nazi government. Imagine being in nazi germany, and being like, "Yes, I want to advocate for white people, but guys it’s not looking good, we’re gonna have to vote for the socialists. None of the policies the national socialist German workers party said they would implement have been implemented, there are still Jews everywhere, I don’t see mass deportations. We gotta vote for the socialists."
He’s a gay Mexican Nazi, but who knows. The Nazis had Azeri and Bosnian SS units and courted Chandra Bose.
Time traveler joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 6 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,984
@previous (D)
That’s one of the funny things about racist governments. They tend to start allowing non "racially pure" people to join the military when they start losing.
It turns out throwing "racially pure" people into the meat grinder while banning non "racially pure" people from fighting has the effects of reducing the number of available people to fight the war while also reducing the number of "racially pure" people left alive.
Time traveler double-posted this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,985
It is interesting though that racist governments tend to lose wars. If you look into the reason why economics is called "the dismal science" originally it was because once economics started to be established as a social science some people started realizing that there’s an argument to be made that slavery is actually bad for the economy. Basically if black people earn a salary, then they’ll spend money on goods and services, but if they’re slaves that don’t get a salary they won’t do that. So there’s less consumer spending in an economy based on slavery than in an economy where everyone is paid for their labor and there are no slaves. Which has indirect effects on the rest of the economy. For example, if a white person pays a black person to do a task and then the black person uses the money they made to buy goods from white people, then that actually advantages more white people than if that black person couldn’t afford to buy anything. Which actually makes white people better off. And then if you have to pay your workers a salary, that forces you to actually innovate to find way to make more money. So economies without slavery tended to become more industrial, which has a big advantage when fighting wars, which is part of the reason why the north won the civil war. They had a bigger economy and more people and superior technology because they were more industrialized because they didn’t have slavery.
Basically to summarize all that: there are a lot of reasons why more racist governments are prone to losing wars to less racist governments, and most of the reasons have something to do with economics.
Time traveler triple-posted this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,986
But the issue is racists judge themselves relative to other people. So if a racist makes a black person poor, they feel rich in comparison. But if you look at absolute levels of wealth, in a society that isn’t racist, both black people and white people would be more rich than in a racist society. So the entire thing is counterproductive to humanity.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,987
Racist and ultranationalist governments lose, in part, because they’re ideological hacks. They don’t focus enough on logistics and practicality in favor of their dark “utopian” vision. Hitler alienated a lot of Slavs who would have fought in his armies. Milosevic pushed a war he couldn’t win quickly, not with a Serbian portion of the Yugoslav army only geared toward defensive operations. The West backed Croatia. The Young Turks ended up only with Anatolia and murdered millions of their Christian subjects to zero tactical advantage. Practicality comes second to grand aims or control.
Time traveler replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,988
Now the US has been de-industrializing for decades, but even up until World War Two, most of the United State’s manufacturing capacity was in the north. Especially in places like Detroit.
Time traveler double-posted this 1 month ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,991
@1,426,987 (I)
I think the biggest problem with the axis powers of World War Two, is they tried to do what other countries took hundreds of years to do in a short timespan. So they made rapid progress in the earlier stages of the war when they were sending out ideologically fanatical soldiers high on drugs in blitzkriegs, but if you compare Germany, Italy, and Japan and their territory to the territory the British empire, the United States, Canada, Australia, Russia, and China held on a map, of course population isn’t distributed evenly, but it’s kind of obvious the axis couldn’t win. They were far outnumbered and eventually they would have spread themselves too thin no matter what. The British, Spanish, French, and Portuguese empires were successful in the Americas because 90% of the native population died from smallpox, so that wasn’t really all that impressive that the Americas were conquered. Then Africa was conquered because of the Industrial Revolution which was made possible when Europe exploited the resources of the Americas and because of gunpowder. The Europeans never conquered all of Africa when Europeans didn’t had gunpowder, and since Africans have had gunpowder, Europeans so far haven’t done anything close to reestablishing their colonies.
Time traveler triple-posted this 1 month ago, 12 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,426,993
Actually when Trump said he was going to go into Nigeria guns a-blazing, one of the reasons why it was limited to under-whelming missile strikes in the middle of the desert landing in an open field with inconclusive results is because western military presence in Africa, if you look into it, is actually surprisingly small. They have a lot of "bases" until you start looking up what the base is for and how many people are stationed there and you end up realizing it’s basically nothing.
> I think the biggest problem with the axis powers of World War Two, is they tried to do what other countries took hundreds of years to do in a short timespan. So they made rapid progress in the earlier stages of the war when they were sending out ideologically fanatical soldiers high on drugs in blitzkriegs, but if you compare Germany, Italy, and Japan and their territory to the territory the British empire, the United States, Canada, Australia, Russia, and China held on a map, of course population isn’t distributed evenly, but it’s kind of obvious the axis couldn’t win. They were far outnumbered and eventually they would have spread themselves too thin no matter what. The British, Spanish, French, and Portuguese empires were successful in the Americas because 90% of the native population died from smallpox, so that wasn’t really all that impressive that the Americas were conquered. Then Africa was conquered because of the Industrial Revolution which was made possible when Europe exploited the resources of the Americas and because of gunpowder. The Europeans never conquered all of Africa when Europeans didn’t had gunpowder, and since Africans have had gunpowder, Europeans so far haven’t done anything close to reestablishing their colonies.
The Axis wasn’t well-coordinated and entered the war without sufficient materiel. The Nazis lost at Moscow in 1941. Two-thirds of German logistics consisted of horse-drawn transport, mixed with the problem of different railroad track gauges between Europe and Russia. Requiring trains to be unloaded and reloaded.
Japan was out of oil by late 1944 even by known estimates. Yet engaged in island seizures rather than maybe taking Siberia.