European Union: the lounge-loving and elitist Left has been defeated

[Magic Man]

There are so many wealthy people who aren't bankers.

That's why it's weird that you're focusing so much on "bankers". It's almost like you're buying into an antisemitic conspiracy theory...

 

[Koldo]

I remind you that your president refused to meet Zelenskyy when he visited South America.

I hope you also know the reason why he (wisely) did that. https://tass.com/world/1719147

Your own link explains why.
https://tass.com/world/1719147

Maybe you don't understand that I don't side with the likes of Milei. I side with the likes of Lula.

I truly doubt you would side with Lula if you were aware of the current economic policies.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's why it's weird that you're focusing so much on "bankers". It's almost like you're buying into an antisemitic conspiracy theory...

I've never brought up religion. That sounds like an excusatio non petita.
Or tail of straw, as we call it.

 

[Magic Man]

There are so many wealthy people who aren't bankers.

That's why it's weird that you're focusing so much on "bankers". It's almost like you're buying into an antisemitic conspiracy theory...

 

[Magic Man]

I think it's a natural outcome of "progressives" becoming extreme in the other direction.

No, it's a natural outcome of economic hard times. "Progressives" haven't become more extreme. That's part of the right-wing narrative that helps them gain power.

 

[Magic Man]

The Democrats want to limit freedom of speech and gag all their political opponents but they call themselves "democratic".

No, they don't. That's just part of the right-wing propaganda.

It's like as if I were a prostitute and I chose "Immaculate Virgin" as nickname.

Yes, that describes a lot of the right-wing, like Trump, for instance.

 

[Magic Man]

I've never brought up religion. That sounds like an excusatio non petita.
Or tail of straw, as we call it.

I didn't bring up religion either. I pointed out that your emphasis on some "banker elite" is straight from antisemitic conspiracy theories. Because it is.

 

[Estro Felino]

Russia invaded a sovereign country just because it wanted to take it over. The propaganda comes from the right and is pro-Putin.

Because Putin wants peace and the elitist cabal of warmongers refuse to come to terms with him.

In other words, the right is responsible for the propaganda as well as the nationalism and populism. They are selling false narratives to get people like you to buy in, and you're falling for it.

In Europe people tend to vote for the opponents when they feel betrayed by their own heroes.

 

[Stevicus]

Honestly I suspect that it's some banking élites overseas who hired the Nazis in the forties. They hired them to conquer and undo the Soviet Union.

Nationalism arose in Europe originally as a method of crowd control. It was a way of keeping the local populations under a reasonable degree of positive control. Both Bismarck and Napoleon III were nationalists, but also believed in implementing social security and other social programs to improve life for the common people - at least those within their own domain. But they also had aggressive foreign policies and wanted to forge their own global empires. It was a kind of social liberalism at home, and aggressive nationalism abroad. The British were similar in that they had their global empire, but they were able to allow for more liberal policies at home. Even the U.S. moved down a similar path. In contrast, the Russians never really liberalized all that much, so their situation became more unstable and prone to revolutionary violence.

The elites may have wanted to undo the Soviet Union, but in the end, the Nazis were defeated and the Soviet Union became even more powerful. The Allies in the West sent a great deal of aid and materiel to the Soviet Union.

 

[Magic Man]

Because Putin wants peace and the elitist cabal of warmongers refuse to come to terms with him.

Uh, Putin wants peace, so he...invaded a sovereign country? I'm not even sure how you can rationalize that idea.

In Europe people tend to vote for the opponents when they feel betrayed by their own heroes.

People everywhere sadly vote for charismatic people who promise them easy answers. That's how we get right-wing populism and nationalism.

 

[Estro Felino]

Nationalism arose in Europe originally as a method of crowd control. It was a way of keeping the local populations under a reasonable degree of positive control. Both Bismarck and Napoleon III were nationalists, but also believed in implementing social security and other social programs to improve life for the common people - at least those within their own domain. But they also had aggressive foreign policies and wanted to forge their own global empires. It was a kind of social liberalism at home, and aggressive nationalism abroad. The British were similar in that they had their global empire, but they were able to allow for more liberal policies at home. Even the U.S. moved down a similar path. In contrast, the Russians never really liberalized all that much, so their situation became more unstable and prone to revolutionary violence.

The elites may have wanted to undo the Soviet Union, but in the end, the Nazis were defeated and the Soviet Union became even more powerful. The Allies in the West sent a great deal of aid and materiel to the Soviet Union.

The fact that the US declared a cold war on the Soviet Union, instead of celebrating victory together speaks volumes.

I mean...the US did welcome so many Nazis and hired them. Operation Paperclip.
So...I can put two and two together.
For instance ...it was the Russians who took Berlin. Not the Americans.

 

[Magic Man]

The fact that the US declared a cold war on the Soviet Union, instead of celebrating victory together speaks volumes.

The U.S. didn't "declare a cold war". The alliance between Russia and countries like the U.S. and the U.K. was always tense and uneasy. It just became more so after the war ended.

I mean...the US did welcome so many Nazis and hired them. Operation Paperclip.
So...I can put two and two together.
For instance ...it was the Russians who took Berlin. Not the Americans.

They didn't welcome Nazis. They brought in German scientists to help with nuclear weapons. What does Russia taking Berlin have to do with anything?

 

[F1fan]

Honestly I suspect that it's some banking élites overseas who hired the Nazis in the forties. They hired them to conquer and undo the Soviet Union.

The right wing are the elites. They are greedy and are willing to risk war to steal money, land, attain power, etc. because in the case of war it's the average public who pays the price. Elites have the advantages to move, hide, and work both sides when necessary. Your brand of right wing politics is intolerant, and that means a higher risk of violence and even war. You are aligned with Russia, and they are currently at war. That's where the right inevitably goes.

When populations start electing right wingers it indicates a rising fear among them, and they make poor decisions. They forget the danger and threats that right wing politics bring.

A brilliant and disturbing film. I have it on DVD.

 

[F1fan]

The fact that the US declared a cold war on the Soviet Union, instead of celebrating victory together speaks volumes.

Remember that Stalin and Hitler had a non-aggression pact from 39 to June of 41, which is when Germany invaded Russia. It was Stalin who created the cold war, mostly due to his paranoia and distrust of the Americans, English, and French. The USA and England were closer than they were to Russia, and Stalin never trusted them even though the USA gave tons of equipment to them. It was known that Stalin was unstable and not terribly interested in sharing Europe with the Allies. There were many Americans, like patton, who wanted to fight the Russians, and Stalin knew this. After the war Stalin felt like he was not being treated equally. It got worse from there. Many Germans did not want to live in the Russian controlled parts, and they started moving to the West. Stalin tried to stop these Berliners and starve them. This is one reason the Berlin airlift had to happen, and later the Berlin Wall.

I mean...the US did welcome so many Nazis and hired them. Operation Paperclip.

They were employed because these Germans knew how to run the country. The Nazis understood they lost. Hitler was dead, who were they going to fight for? Those in the West quickly rejected Nazism and worked to rebuild their nation. They did not like what was happening in East Germany. When Trump dies who are MAGAs going to fight for? That's the dilemma of following a mortal, and not following political movements.

So...I can put two and two together.

You came up with 5 or 22? Your math is notoriously flawed.

For instance ...it was the Russians who took Berlin. Not the Americans.

The Russians wanted Berlin, and the Americans were happy not to commit troops. It saved American lives.

 

[Shaul]

I think the EU elections results are fantastic. It is a fine start to European greatness.

 

[Stevicus]

The fact that the US declared a cold war on the Soviet Union, instead of celebrating victory together speaks volumes.

Well, the U.S., like many governments in Europe, were against the Soviet Union from the outset. One could say that the Cold War really began in 1917, but it was clear that the elite had no love of socialism, communism, Marxism - or anything else along that particular part of the political spectrum. And to be sure, many early socialists and communists had no love of the elite and wanted to tear down the entire capitalist, imperialist system from top to bottom. So, we're talking about two political factions which didn't really like each other to begin with.

Of course, one would think our temporary alliance during WW2 could have built up bonds of trust and mutual respect for one another, which, if they had carried that through, might have avoided 40+ years of Cold War and so much resulting turmoil in the world. The main dispute was over what to do about Germany, but it seemingly grew from there to a worldwide confrontation.

I mean...the US did welcome so many Nazis and hired them. Operation Paperclip.
So...I can put two and two together.
For instance ...it was the Russians who took Berlin. Not the Americans.

The U.S. wanted to rebuild and reform Germany (and Japan) into a pro-Western, democratic bulwark against perceived Soviet expansionism. That meant eliminating the nationalist factions and isolating the far left as far as possible, while favoring a liberal, democratic, pro-business model. The Soviets wanted Germany weakened and de-industrialized to the point that they would never again be able to launch an invasion of Russia again. The West did not agree and chose to reindustrialize West Germany, and also appeared to take a much softer approach towards the Nazi war criminals than the Soviets did. I know there were some scientists and ex-Nazis who made their way to the West. Many were given refuge in Argentina and elsewhere in South America.

The Russians took Berlin by agreement among the Allies. But the city was divided, as the Western Allies still occupied West Berlin. Logistically, it made sense, since the Russians were coming from the east, and the Western Allies were coming from the west. Berlin was in the eastern half of the country, so it seems a more logical objective for those invading from the east.

 

[icehorse]

No, it's a natural outcome of economic hard times. "Progressives" haven't become more extreme. That's part of the right-wing narrative that helps them gain power.

Partially agreed.

Oligarchs poison everything, and oligarchs love any and all flavors of extremism, it keeps normal people distracted.

But the so-called "left" and "right" both have a lot of extremists.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, the U.S., like many governments in Europe, were against the Soviet Union from the outset. One could say that the Cold War really began in 1917, but it was clear that the elite had no love of socialism, communism, Marxism - or anything else along that particular part of the political spectrum. And to be sure, many early socialists and communists had no love of the elite and wanted to tear down the entire capitalist, imperialist system from top to bottom. So, we're talking about two political factions which didn't really like each other to begin with.

That is why the king appointed Mussolini as PM because he was the lesser of two evils: it was between him and a Bolshevik revolution in Italy.
But when the Fascism ended, Socialists, Communists and ChristianDemocrats worked together in great harmony.
There never was a Cold War in Italy, since Moscow has never been perceived as a threat. After all, Italian Socialists governed together with the ChristianDemocrats for years. A Russian city is called Tol'atti, after Italian Communist Togliatti.
In the US Marxism has always been a threat to the capitalists' interests.

Of course, one would think our temporary alliance during WW2 could have built up bonds of trust and mutual respect for one another, which, if they had carried that through, might have avoided 40+ years of Cold War and so much resulting turmoil in the world. The main dispute was over what to do about Germany, but it seemingly grew from there to a worldwide confrontation.
The U.S. wanted to rebuild and reform Germany (and Japan) into a pro-Western, democratic bulwark against perceived Soviet expansionism. That meant eliminating the nationalist factions and isolating the far left as far as possible, while favoring a liberal, democratic, pro-business model. The Soviets wanted Germany weakened and de-industrialized to the point that they would never again be able to launch an invasion of Russia again. The West did not agree and chose to reindustrialize West Germany, and also appeared to take a much softer approach towards the Nazi war criminals than the Soviets did. I know there were some scientists and ex-Nazis who made their way to the West. Many were given refuge in Argentina and elsewhere in South America.

The Nazis had told us that the war would last few months...few weeks.
If we had known that they were planning to conquer Moscow, Italy would have never joined.

The Russians took Berlin by agreement among the Allies. But the city was divided, as the Western Allies still occupied West Berlin. Logistically, it made sense, since the Russians were coming from the east, and the Western Allies were coming from the west. Berlin was in the eastern half of the country, so it seems a more logical objective for those invading from the east.

Honestly I find all this suspicious. The timing.
After all...the Americans just took Southern Italy and kinda left Northern Italy to the Nazis. Maybe on purpose?
The US army was invincible so I don't understand why they didn't take Northern Italy as well...

 

[Estro Felino]

Partially agreed.

Oligarchs poison everything, and oligarchs love any and all flavors of extremism, it keeps normal people distracted.

But the so-called "left" and "right" both have a lot of extremists.

Exactly. Bravo.
Left and right are outdated labels.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No. He was a socialist in his younger years. Then he became a fascist. Socialism is left wing.


"The left" is "pro-people". Right-wing nationalism and populism isn't "pro-people". It purports to be in order to gain power, but it's all about power, not helping the population.

It's interesting that Socialism and Fascism are identical down the road.

National Socialist Party?