Soviet Britain

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Liquid Steel, Jan 4, 2011.

  1. Liquid Steel

    Liquid Steel Valued Member

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgPShED6jaY"]Soviet Britain[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjQJq8t5aWA"]Soviet 2[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAUYrnAXbxg&feature=related"]Soviet 3[/ame]

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEdyYTpT5BU"]Soviet 4[/ame]


    For those who are interested. For those that aren't, feel free to obfuscate and whine below.

    Peace.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2011
  2. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    Still watching but one thing bugged me: UK police and Military police aren't issued UZIs
     
  3. Liquid Steel

    Liquid Steel Valued Member

    Fair dos, appreciate you taking the time.

    I don't agree with every little detail of the talk but I do thoroughly support the broader message. God, I sound like a politician.
     
  4. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    I'm pedantic as hell about stuff like that :p

    Its interesting so far, I'll keep any other thoughts to myself though until I've finished all of them
     
  5. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    Do they get better after part one? That has nothing to say other than dark invocations attempting to feed an atmosphere of fear and a feeling of self-satisfaction at "knowing the truth" all presented in a manner couched in legal terms but lacking any actual substance.

    Honestly, if they're all that vague I don't want to waste that much of my life. Is there anything specific later?

    Mitch
     
  6. Llamageddon

    Llamageddon MAP's weird cousin Supporter

    The image on the second vid was enough to stop me. Anti-British Tories = fascist? What does that actually mean? And then second, why a discussion of fascists in something entitled Soviet Britain? Is this like the whole Nazi = Communist line of argument?

    Also, the EU (I'm guessing that's what an anti-British Tory supports...) is the furthest from fascism you can get, considering it was created to stop fascism and war, and is such a massive diciple of the 'free market' you couldn't call it anything but liberal.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2011
  7. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    Something I feel a need to point out is there is a fair bit of stuff that I see the same as the crappy sensationalist headlines you get in the news of the world: Park wardens preventing you going in a park with kids for example.
     
  8. Liquid Steel

    Liquid Steel Valued Member

    Fascist comes from the word Fasces found originally in the Roman System. (though in the Minoan culture too) It simply means a strong centralised state or strength through unity. Thus, yes, a communist system is also fascistic.

    The fasces symbol can be seen crossed at the bottom of this logo... p.s. The lettering says "From many, One".
    [​IMG]
    (I never noticed the phrygian cap in the senate logo? Bloody revolutionaries get everywhere I guess)

    How is the EU based on a "free market"? Just one example from hundreds... the common agricultural policy? Yeah that's free market!

    The European Union was not created to stop war... anymore than the Soviet Union was created to stop war. That is nonsense.

    -----------

    The scale used primarily is liberty-----authoritarianism. Not left----right.

    If you haven't noticed the ever increasing intrusion into peoples lives by state bureaucracy and the ever decreasing order within society... the falling moral standards, the apathy, the narcissism... then I'm not sure what to say anyway.

    -----------


    You may call that sensationalising but it also happens to be true. Normal interactions between people are being interfered with and there does seem to be an effort to raise the public consciousness in regards to sexual deviancy.

    PPS: The 1st video perhaps is the least interesting... patience is a necessity I believe. :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2011
  9. Fish Of Doom

    Fish Of Doom Will : Mind : Motion Supporter

    may the almighty atheismo have mercy on me for this:

    in soviet britain, her thatch YOU!

    that is all.
     
  10. Llamageddon

    Llamageddon MAP's weird cousin Supporter

    1) There is not one instance anywhere of the free market operating as it should. An actual free market is purely theoretical. Hence the use of inverted commas. However, the EU impliments what are largely considered as free market policies in line with IMF and World Bank recommendations.

    2) Do you know the history of the EU? What was the first instance of the modern EU? That would be the European Coal and Steel Agreement, which forced France and Germany to share their resources of coal and steel - two of the biggest resources needed for a successful military industrial complex. Then came various other economic and political agreements, the beginning of the EC, EEC and then the beginning of the EU we know today.

    Oh, interesting tidbit - you could actually argue the Soviet Union was created to stop war, as war has no place within theoretically pure Communism, and its physical expansionist policies in the Cold War were Stalin's strategic and political response to the US/west's socio-political and economic expansionism.

    3) the use of a purely authoritarian/libertarian scale is just as flawed and selective as a purely economic scale. You can not characterise a political ideology solely on its approach to liberty, just as you can not characterise a political ideology solely on its preferred method(s) of organising the economy.

    Finally (I know this bit isn't aimed at me, but hey I'm involved now) what exactly is 'normal interactions between people'? I'd actually argue that what we consider a 'normal interaction' in terms of every day interaction within the market system etc is mostly socially constructed to fit a particular paradigm. A good example of what I'm getting at can be found in radical feminism and its views towards gender roles and so on.
     
  11. Cuong Nhu

    Cuong Nhu Valued Member

    Lets keep the idiotic partisan non-sense where is belongs people: below the ice in the central most ring of the Inferno.
     
  12. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    Y'see, again, I'm waiting for actual evidence rather than wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    -----------




    Oh my oh my; "sexual deviancy?" Would you care to expand on this point, perhaps in the context of the "falling moral standards" you mentioned earlier?

    Mitch
     
  13. Liquid Steel

    Liquid Steel Valued Member

    By your definition British Mercantilism was also "free market".

    The IMF and World Bank have murdered millions through forced migration, structural adjustment programmes and the destruction of public services in third world countries. I suggest a lot of research on these organisations and their numerous crimes. They also have nothing to do with free markets. If you want to discuss neo-liberalism this isn't really the time.


    I do know the history of the EU yes. Such as the amount of lies and distortion required to build it.

    The soviet empire waged war on its own people. Today we are having war waged on us also. In terms of soviet - US relationships I would recommend the work of Dr Antony Sutton such as;

    Antony-C-Sutton-Viktor-Suvorov-Technology-Transfer-From-the-West-to-the-Soviet-Union

    I did not say one should, I simply said that it was more relevant than left/right.

    We're so domesticated that in a sense you're right... we no longer know what is normal. However I don't think the destruction of the family is a step towards the common good nor do I think a society based on mutual paranoia is.
     
  14. Llamageddon

    Llamageddon MAP's weird cousin Supporter

    Mercantilism was the beginning of modern economic liberalism and was based on trade within a 'free' market. So, yes.

    You suggest a lot of research? I'm a PhD student in politics and IR. Research is what I do. I'm also a Marxist so am well aware of their 'crimes' thank you. They have everything to do with free markets. They are the closest the capitalist system can get to a 'free' market. People want to prosper, and businesses must profit. Therefore the market will never be left to its own devices and actually be free.



    That's a lovely sentence. I particularly like how it actually tells us sweet fa about the EU. You know your history. If you knew the actual history and then the various analyses of its development you wouldn't have had an issue with what I said about it.


    Richard Sakwa is also good.


    You did not say one should, but you went ahead and did it anyway. And as I showed, it's not more relevant at all. Perhaps for your argument.



    Do all radical feminists advocate the 'destruction of the family'? I think you'll find that's not the case. The ethos of radical feminism is simply to rethink gender roles. Perhaps I should have been more specific.

    Right, I was up for a debate, but if I want to keep low blood pressure I can't. Don't talk to me like I don't know what I'm talking about. Don't condescend to me. Use academically rigorous evidence, stop using straw men, stop conveniently leaving bits out of your argument.

    Stop arguing blindly, too. That'd be nice.
     
  15. Liquid Steel

    Liquid Steel Valued Member

    Paedophilia is a sexual deviancy. You want me to define deviancy? There is of course a subjective element to that so I won't let the discussion become hijacked by that. We can agree at least that Paedophilia is a dangerous sexual deviancy? One that cannot perhaps be helped in many cases but is dangerous nonetheless.

    You could tie them together under the huge rise in sexual promiscuity we see in the younger generation not only leads to infections and abortions but also to a decreased ability to bond properly. This then leads to the destruction of the family and children being easier prey for the state.

    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a903964149~frm=abslink (if you have academic access)

    http://secularheretic-st.blogspot.com/2009/01/woman-who-have-multiple-sexual-partners.html
     
  16. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    How?

    Mitch
     
  17. Llamageddon

    Llamageddon MAP's weird cousin Supporter

    Because more open sexuality obviously means more kiddy fiddling.
     
  18. Liquid Steel

    Liquid Steel Valued Member

    You follow a Marxist ideology? Which aspects? You believe in conflict theory and the whole hog?

    You don't mind research, oh good! So you'll go and find out how many people the world bank have killed? To give you an idea of the numbers it was one million in Indonesia alone. (due to displacement and starvation)

    I'm not getting into a debate on what constitutes free markets or not, or economic liberalism or not, or whether the EU are raping us with their left fist or their right fist. If you wish to discuss the mechanisms of the EU that is fine, theoretical discussions I simply don't have time for. It detracts from the intent of the thread which is to discuss the ever increasing authoritarianism in the UK. Basically, I want systems analysis.

    My purpose here is not to engage in some sort of intellectual willy measuring competition. But I would like to say mine is bigger, wider and goes for longer. ;)


    I simply didn't want to repeat what everyone knows about lisbon treaty etc.

    I always thought Sakwa to be quite unoriginal, though I didn't mind the rise and fall.

    I believe it to be more relevant. You're free to disagree.


    I'm not interested in advocation, I'm interested in social engineering. Granted, movements such as feminism play their part but I would like to keep the focus upon the larger picture. I didn't even mention radical feminism, I'm talking about a consolidated ruling class waging psychological warfare on the population, with one of the aims being, the destruction of the family. You've no doubt studied the soviet system? Have you seen any of the documents the soviets wrote on subversion? Beria was quite the specialist in this department.

    Watch all of these, they're fascinating! [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN0By0xbst8&p=9D9FEA637F192575"]YURI BEZMENOV[/ame]



    How am I condescending to you? There is always the danger with text of reading tones which aren't there. If you feel I'm using straw men please point them out. Cheers.
     
  19. Liquid Steel

    Liquid Steel Valued Member

    I was linking promiscuity, lower moral standards and the destruction of the family. Paedophilia was not meant to be invoked as part of that particular point. Perhaps it is worded badly, perhaps you misunderstood. I'll go back and see.

    That's not what I said... who is using strawman now? ;)

    Though actually in a roundabout way, that is true. Any natural drive can be overstimulated to the point of neurosis. Whether it be food, drink, sex, survival instincts (think irrational paranoia and the like) or even movement (repeated behaviours). I'm sure we can all think of numerous conditions linked to these drives...

    Constantly sexualising objects and imagery within society does lead to an increase in sexual deviancy. There is a big difference, remember, between being open about sex and sexualising content which is not supposed to be sexual. Think about modern marketing for an example.

    PS For a documented account of the lies, distortion and malignant mindset behind the creation of the EU get a hold of Chirstopher Story's "European Collective". It's expensive but it's worth it. You may be able to get your department to order it in for you if you catch them before they waste their money on complete rubbish (well... that's what mine does).
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2011
  20. Dizzyj

    Dizzyj Valued Member

    It is not his job to do so.

    You are making a radical claim (and not your only one so far), which contradicts the commonly accepted account within the academic fields of history and international relations, almost certainly within others as well. That isn't necessarily a problem, the prevailing viewpoint isn't by definition correct; but you need to provide substantial evidence to support your claim.

    Since your claim is a strongly aberrant one, with further implications for other aspects of accepted knowledge that would need to be rethought, the evidence required needs to be equally strong and convincing. You will then need to defend your argument WITH evidence successfully against any critics we have here, while demonstrating why the commonly accepted viewpoint is indefensible.

    Only then can you expect your claim to be taken on faith. Now we aren't exactly writing for university print so not all of the steps are necessary, but a little evidence would be nice as a concession to the leap of judgement you are asking the reader to make! ;)
     

Share This Page