The *end of the war type child soldiers scenes are towards the last of the end of the war, where much of the internal power was already below the threshold but so too was the country. In other words, it wasn't a total war footing, it was a last ditch effort to buy some time.
And I am happy to discuss and dispense redpills, but I should give you fair warning that as humbly as possible be saying, my memory and knowledge is extremely autisticly VSG, in classes I was that kid who corrected the errors in the textbook in class. Sometimes I have typos, etc, and am very happy to learn new things too. But generally speaking, the phrases like "I don't know what I'm talking about" or "that's not true" etc don't apply to my words. I'm a Quaker, and put a high importance on integrity and honesty and truth.
first modern concept of socialism came from Marx & Engels, but socialism in and of itself just refers to when the government controls everything...
Redpill: One key thing about Marxism, is it plays the old testament lawyer game of redefining words.. "it depends on what the definition of is, is." And many educated in Marxism, greatly enjoy this sport, of saying how eg non-marxist sports analogy: American soccer and FIFA football; or indoor and outdoor; are completely different / not the same things.
Another way, is to invert the issue at hand. To put it simply, how to logically attach socialism to say "the Enlightenment" line of thinking of things like:
where does government get it's power
how money works
how property or labour works
Etc.
Does it fit? or does it fit under the Marxism umbrella?
Socialism fits under a Marxist umbrella, yes. But it also fits under an anti-Marxist umbrella too. Therein lies the issue with what we're talking about here.
How can something be categorized under a system that goes against it? Fascism is anti-Marxist Marxism? That doesn't make sense. I think it's just your categorization of fascism being worse than standard-issue Marxist socialism that I disagree with. Fascism in and of itself isn't really all that bad from an economic standpoint. There are certain fascistic/nazi-esque economic policies that are actually extremely useful and beneficial in weeding out corruption and preventing it along with reducing debt. That's how Hitler reduced unemployment in the country and essentially fucked over the elitist bankers that enslaved most of the world right now—through the fascistic policies he implemented. It's completely against what communists would do, really.
My reply got longer than I thought it would be *hugs
One of the big picture things to realize about Marxism, is it's tried and tested practice of redefining words and definitions. This contributes to their forcing illogical contradictions. Key is don't use their bluepilled definitions into your vocabulary or reasonings. Can use words defined pre-Marx, for all reasoning.
Another is their tried and tested practice of as an example, last week John Kerry said a statement like, "We need the Great (Global) Reset to stop the rise in Populism." This is a falsehood on the face of it. These two things might be opposite each other is some aspects, but they are both on the same side, why? The Great reset is marxism. Populism is marxism. No matter who wins or loses it's marxism winning, while others are fighting a rigged boxing match. Similar to a false dichotomy. It's NOT asking what you want to eat for breakfast, it's asking you to make a choice between scrabled eggs or eggs over easy; they're both eggs for breakfast.
SImilar to say High School Class Grade Levels or College:
Freshman
Sophomores
Juniors
Seniors
Now, does it make sense that upper-classmen are anti-underclassmen? Or Seniors haze Freshmen. Are they different, or the same just on a specturm with some differences between them? And given time, resources, training, and increasing education, do they progress from one to the others. eg Marxism: "elect the socialist for free stuff sophmore candidate... and over time, the guns are gone, the food/money/utilities/rights/elections/freedoms/etc are gone too in full commie mode."
Freshman (Places like the USA, with some marxism via W.Wilson/FDR/LBJ/44)
Sophomores (Socialism)
Juniors (Fascism)
Seniors (Communism)
How can something be categorized under a system that goes against it? Fascism is anti-Marxist Marxism? That doesn't make sense.
Bc again like religion. Say the two main sects of Islam, fight each other A LOT; they are against each other often and in some very key differences. But big picture, they are both Islam. Because two sides fight, and have real differences; doesn't mean they aren't the same in the bigger picture. Like asking who is the last Prophet? Or where does Socialism-Fascism-Communism get their "justification" of government power from? What ideological framework is used to justify the government power in taking things? (like a Divine Monarchy might say, God has given this X royal family the right to all the land, big trees, etc.) Or (a dictatorship or warlord, the ideological justification is might makes right to take it.)
On what ideological basis did Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin/Stalin, Castro, Hitler, or all the rest use to starve or kill their civilian populations; or lock-down their citizens, the same as socialist/marxist countries/States/cities are doing with Covid? Where does the government get this "reasoning" of having the power to do this?
Is it because they are king/queen and can order commoners around like that? Is it because they're dicatatorships/warlords and might makes right in the courtroom? Is it because it's for the better of "the majority"? Is it because there's no checks and balances; restrictions on gov power bc they've been removed?
Where does a government today, in all the places of the world; from a mayor like NYC; or a State like CA governor; or a Country; get the "ideology" of "lawful" power to lock-down (aka martial law) their citizens of public population?
...
These same questions when applied to things like money & currency also show that the ideology behind the actions of the flavors of marxism are the same.
Also like I mentioned about the different flavors based on what industries, cultural norms, etc of a location; that the "leader" uses to get to power with marxism; is going to be different slightly. Like saying chocolate and rocky road ice cream.
Because marxism doesn't create it's own positive economic activity; it can only exist or grow by stealing. So depending on how much of what, a country had/has (or the leader is getting support outside from by global commie kin) will depend on when the leaders make their moves upon others for more resources/money.
Hitler moving against certain populations wasn't random, he needed to balance the books & gold supply.
Maduro moving for more after the oil price decline and output decline no longer pays the bills.
And nearly every other example, including how the Central Banks Printing presses are used; and global trade deals or international money. A perfect example is the marxist's wealth transfer out of the USA to fund building up Commie China, NATO not paying their 2%; or the Paris Climate Accords.
What happens when Commie China's money is cut off from the US coffers? Well the CCP will do things like take over Hong Kong sooner than planned after selling off all their real estate holding there. Or claw back their "capitalist class"'s billions in money which they created. Commie China just finally put in their overseas travel restrictions to keep money'd individuals/families from leaving; and other things.
...
...reduced unemployment in the country and essentially fucked over the elitist bankers that enslaved most of the world right now—through the fascistic policies he implemented. It's completely against what communists would do, really.
re: "elitist bankers" Going back to ancient times of written history; like the chips at a poker table, over time, even fair rules and free-will; at least 1 player is going to accumulate far more chips than everyone else. It's is biblical too, Jesus flipping over tables, and lots of other stories. With rigged rules and marked cards; of course the accumulation of chips goes even moreso.
re: The policies are the same, it's theft of marxism. The leader(ship) of marxism in a country; makes a choice of who/what/where/when/how and the propaganda of "why" they do their next round of theft for more resources; keep in mind, there's lots of types of things they steal including labor, land, technology, people, cattle/livestock, stockpiles, foreign exchange, particularly gold, etc.
Much of world history can be written by following the gold around. What did Maduro do with his country's gold... why did Russia send heavy bombers to land at the island nearshore (a few years back)?
...
in weeding out corruption and preventing it
Marxism uses this human desire, as part of it's propaganda and selling point; but it's not true at all. It mearly exchanges one existing corruption and replaces it with "shovel ready" "Cares Act" "CA High Speed Rail" "Cash for Clunkers"; sets of winners and losers. How many government contracts go to people without connections or donations to government officials? It's all the same corruption, but on even bigger steroids under marxism; a short term economic boost is gained by clawing back existing wealth and assets (stealing from existing biz's) and putting into "new" or "known" ones; but this wealth transfer was/is a one time fix/hit like a drug addict. Marxism needs to keep fueling it's habit, or eventual it runs out and into ruin.
The government war examples from 1930's- WW2 are a particular sub-set. As this mornings TD sticky about Pearl Harbor, I commented that even in the headline of FDR's msg; he already announced in other words "total war" and "unconditional surrender"; these things have NEVER before or since been such
a Domestic demand or enemy demand for the USA. FDR already knew, and already had the gameplan with the rest of the commies to spread crap everywhere with maximum extraction of wealth transfer from everybody else; with the top marxists playing at the table with everybody elses chips.
See the key thing to understand about marxism; it's leaders who get to power, don't actually believe in it. The leaders are mass murder power hungry types evil people, who use marxism as a vehicle to power. The leaders don't lose their logic functions to marxism's programmed 'mental logical deconstruction' which creates the REEEEEEs we meme about. The leaders don't loose their logic function bc they don't actually drink their own koolaid they're selling on the street corner.
...
When reading about any flavor of marxism; one simple trick is this:
Marxism promotes violations of at least 3 of the 10 Commandments:
Theft/Stealing
Coveting
Murder/Killing
Expressions like "they need to pay their fair share" directed at the 1% takes something which on the face of it seems like "justice and fairness" but in reality it is coveting, theft, and killing. They tell people to covet they neighbors stuff; otherwise why would you care how many chickens, cattle, tapestries, coins, etc your neighbor has. Then the expression says, to take it, by force of government. And what happens if someone doesn't either get government to take it, and they take it themselves; or what happens when government tries to take it but the person owning it resists the theft... well the owner is going to end up murdered as proven time and again going back to ye ancient time, hence being written on a Stone Tablet to keep the peace and harmorny in society/villiage/town/community/country/nation/family/etc.
All flavors of marxism promote violations of these Commandments to different levels. Hence, the usual simultaineous or pre-emptive attack my marxism upon these basic teachings.
These violations alone are the exact definition of an evil ideology; no matter what level of Intensity.
I hope the above wasn't too many redpills in response for one serving, but you seem interested and also able to understand many things together.
I'm gonna be honest: I didn't read everything you wrote. You started going off on a tangent that was unrelated to what I said (e.g. how Marxism/communism only grow by stealing, etc.) and it just got too long-winded and became word salad. Not trying to be rude, just honest.
From what I did read, you are still mischaracterizing everything, and saying that Marxists redefine words to suit their ideologies/arguments when that is exactly what you're doing lol. One example is how you said populism is always Marxism. This is false. Populism simply refers to what the general populace want. It has nothing to do with Marxism. It's just that Marxists simply impose their desires as being the desires of the populace. That does not mean populism is Marxism.
Ancient Greece was a direct democracy. That in and of itself, is populism. But they were not Marxists.
There's also another thing I would like to point out; you said that the two sects of Islam are still Islam, but as someone who has studied Islam this is blatantly false. The "Islam" that Iran follows (Shi'a) is not actually Islam at all, they simply say it is while using the same historical figures. It would be like a Muslim saying that he's a modern-day Christian simply because Jesus is in the Qur'an. It's just wrong. This mistake is also the same type of mistake you are making with fascism, communism, socialism, and Marxism.
populism is always Marxism. This is false. Populism simply refers to what the general populace want. It has nothing to do with Marxism.
See this is why it's called bluepills vs redpills. For over 130+ years now, Populism = Marxism usually mixed with muh democracy. Populism doesn't mean popular, nor is it another word for "the majority" (aka 50% +1) of democracy; nor the say middle of the bell curve from a math/statisical population point of vew. It's marxism's class warfare, it's the 99% vs 1%, it's haves vs havenots. At least 25% of people when they hear Populism/Populist as words/terms, they don't hear the marxism. It does NOT mean as Steve Bannon uses it. imo S.B. basicially is using it as a way to introductory redpill people whom are bluepilled. Many European/Parliamentary types also use/get labeled with "populism" but MAGA/DJT and similar are not Populism/populist.
You can read a few paragraphs, or read through lots of old books, pamphlets, speeches, etc from 130 years ago and onward, but can start with the simple wiki page:
The term populism came into use in the late 19th century alongside the promotion of democracy. In the United States, it was closely associated with the People's Party, while in the Russian Empire it was linked to the agrarian socialist Narodnik movement.
The People's Party, also known as the Populist Party or simply the Populists, was a left-wing[2] agrarian populist[3] late-19th-century political party in the United States. The Populist Party emerged in the early 1890s as an important force in the Southern and Western United States, but collapsed after it nominated Democrat William Jennings Bryan in the 1896 United States presidential election.
The Narodniks were in many ways the intellectual and political forebears and, in notable cases, direct participants of the Russian Revolution—in particular of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, which went on to greatly influence Russian history in the 20th century.
Redpill: There is no such thing as "right-wing" populism; it's all marxism leftie. Over the recent decades, there's been much effort by the marxists, as with so many other terms, to redefine the definition and expand the propaganda.
Populism = Marxism (usually mixed with democracy, but really it's just another candy coated branding of marxism.)
..
See your paragraph on Islam, is a well written exact redpill. If you ask either sect, they'll say they are the true one; and point out how they are NOT like the other. But to most people not in the two sects; see them as far more similar than different (neither one would exist without the same historical person/author). Same for with how "strict" an adherent one is to all the tenents prescribed. This is the same as those under the umbrella of Marxism, vs those outside of it; and how strict the flavors hold to the tenents prescribed by the author(Marx or Marx and Engels).
Redpills sauce...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportpalast_speech
The *end of the war type child soldiers scenes are towards the last of the end of the war, where much of the internal power was already below the threshold but so too was the country. In other words, it wasn't a total war footing, it was a last ditch effort to buy some time.
And I am happy to discuss and dispense redpills, but I should give you fair warning that as humbly as possible be saying, my memory and knowledge is extremely autisticly VSG, in classes I was that kid who corrected the errors in the textbook in class. Sometimes I have typos, etc, and am very happy to learn new things too. But generally speaking, the phrases like "I don't know what I'm talking about" or "that's not true" etc don't apply to my words. I'm a Quaker, and put a high importance on integrity and honesty and truth.
Redpill: One key thing about Marxism, is it plays the old testament lawyer game of redefining words.. "it depends on what the definition of is, is." And many educated in Marxism, greatly enjoy this sport, of saying how eg non-marxist sports analogy: American soccer and FIFA football; or indoor and outdoor; are completely different / not the same things.
Another way, is to invert the issue at hand. To put it simply, how to logically attach socialism to say "the Enlightenment" line of thinking of things like:
where does government get it's power
how money works
how property or labour works
Etc.
Does it fit? or does it fit under the Marxism umbrella?
Socialism fits under a Marxist umbrella, yes. But it also fits under an anti-Marxist umbrella too. Therein lies the issue with what we're talking about here.
How can something be categorized under a system that goes against it? Fascism is anti-Marxist Marxism? That doesn't make sense. I think it's just your categorization of fascism being worse than standard-issue Marxist socialism that I disagree with. Fascism in and of itself isn't really all that bad from an economic standpoint. There are certain fascistic/nazi-esque economic policies that are actually extremely useful and beneficial in weeding out corruption and preventing it along with reducing debt. That's how Hitler reduced unemployment in the country and essentially fucked over the elitist bankers that enslaved most of the world right now—through the fascistic policies he implemented. It's completely against what communists would do, really.
My reply got longer than I thought it would be *hugs
One of the big picture things to realize about Marxism, is it's tried and tested practice of redefining words and definitions. This contributes to their forcing illogical contradictions. Key is don't use their bluepilled definitions into your vocabulary or reasonings. Can use words defined pre-Marx, for all reasoning.
Another is their tried and tested practice of as an example, last week John Kerry said a statement like, "We need the Great (Global) Reset to stop the rise in Populism." This is a falsehood on the face of it. These two things might be opposite each other is some aspects, but they are both on the same side, why? The Great reset is marxism. Populism is marxism. No matter who wins or loses it's marxism winning, while others are fighting a rigged boxing match. Similar to a false dichotomy. It's NOT asking what you want to eat for breakfast, it's asking you to make a choice between scrabled eggs or eggs over easy; they're both eggs for breakfast.
SImilar to say High School Class Grade Levels or College:
Freshman
Sophomores
Juniors
Seniors
Now, does it make sense that upper-classmen are anti-underclassmen? Or Seniors haze Freshmen. Are they different, or the same just on a specturm with some differences between them? And given time, resources, training, and increasing education, do they progress from one to the others. eg Marxism: "elect the socialist for free stuff sophmore candidate... and over time, the guns are gone, the food/money/utilities/rights/elections/freedoms/etc are gone too in full commie mode."
Freshman (Places like the USA, with some marxism via W.Wilson/FDR/LBJ/44)
Sophomores (Socialism)
Juniors (Fascism)
Seniors (Communism)
Bc again like religion. Say the two main sects of Islam, fight each other A LOT; they are against each other often and in some very key differences. But big picture, they are both Islam. Because two sides fight, and have real differences; doesn't mean they aren't the same in the bigger picture. Like asking who is the last Prophet? Or where does Socialism-Fascism-Communism get their "justification" of government power from? What ideological framework is used to justify the government power in taking things? (like a Divine Monarchy might say, God has given this X royal family the right to all the land, big trees, etc.) Or (a dictatorship or warlord, the ideological justification is might makes right to take it.)
On what ideological basis did Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin/Stalin, Castro, Hitler, or all the rest use to starve or kill their civilian populations; or lock-down their citizens, the same as socialist/marxist countries/States/cities are doing with Covid? Where does the government get this "reasoning" of having the power to do this?
Is it because they are king/queen and can order commoners around like that? Is it because they're dicatatorships/warlords and might makes right in the courtroom? Is it because it's for the better of "the majority"? Is it because there's no checks and balances; restrictions on gov power bc they've been removed?
Where does a government today, in all the places of the world; from a mayor like NYC; or a State like CA governor; or a Country; get the "ideology" of "lawful" power to lock-down (aka martial law) their citizens of public population?
...
These same questions when applied to things like money & currency also show that the ideology behind the actions of the flavors of marxism are the same.
Also like I mentioned about the different flavors based on what industries, cultural norms, etc of a location; that the "leader" uses to get to power with marxism; is going to be different slightly. Like saying chocolate and rocky road ice cream.
Because marxism doesn't create it's own positive economic activity; it can only exist or grow by stealing. So depending on how much of what, a country had/has (or the leader is getting support outside from by global commie kin) will depend on when the leaders make their moves upon others for more resources/money.
Hitler moving against certain populations wasn't random, he needed to balance the books & gold supply.
Maduro moving for more after the oil price decline and output decline no longer pays the bills.
And nearly every other example, including how the Central Banks Printing presses are used; and global trade deals or international money. A perfect example is the marxist's wealth transfer out of the USA to fund building up Commie China, NATO not paying their 2%; or the Paris Climate Accords.
What happens when Commie China's money is cut off from the US coffers? Well the CCP will do things like take over Hong Kong sooner than planned after selling off all their real estate holding there. Or claw back their "capitalist class"'s billions in money which they created. Commie China just finally put in their overseas travel restrictions to keep money'd individuals/families from leaving; and other things.
...
re: "elitist bankers" Going back to ancient times of written history; like the chips at a poker table, over time, even fair rules and free-will; at least 1 player is going to accumulate far more chips than everyone else. It's is biblical too, Jesus flipping over tables, and lots of other stories. With rigged rules and marked cards; of course the accumulation of chips goes even moreso.
re: The policies are the same, it's theft of marxism. The leader(ship) of marxism in a country; makes a choice of who/what/where/when/how and the propaganda of "why" they do their next round of theft for more resources; keep in mind, there's lots of types of things they steal including labor, land, technology, people, cattle/livestock, stockpiles, foreign exchange, particularly gold, etc.
Much of world history can be written by following the gold around. What did Maduro do with his country's gold... why did Russia send heavy bombers to land at the island nearshore (a few years back)?
...
Marxism uses this human desire, as part of it's propaganda and selling point; but it's not true at all. It mearly exchanges one existing corruption and replaces it with "shovel ready" "Cares Act" "CA High Speed Rail" "Cash for Clunkers"; sets of winners and losers. How many government contracts go to people without connections or donations to government officials? It's all the same corruption, but on even bigger steroids under marxism; a short term economic boost is gained by clawing back existing wealth and assets (stealing from existing biz's) and putting into "new" or "known" ones; but this wealth transfer was/is a one time fix/hit like a drug addict. Marxism needs to keep fueling it's habit, or eventual it runs out and into ruin.
The government war examples from 1930's- WW2 are a particular sub-set. As this mornings TD sticky about Pearl Harbor, I commented that even in the headline of FDR's msg; he already announced in other words "total war" and "unconditional surrender"; these things have NEVER before or since been such a Domestic demand or enemy demand for the USA. FDR already knew, and already had the gameplan with the rest of the commies to spread crap everywhere with maximum extraction of wealth transfer from everybody else; with the top marxists playing at the table with everybody elses chips.
See the key thing to understand about marxism; it's leaders who get to power, don't actually believe in it. The leaders are mass murder power hungry types evil people, who use marxism as a vehicle to power. The leaders don't lose their logic functions to marxism's programmed 'mental logical deconstruction' which creates the REEEEEEs we meme about. The leaders don't loose their logic function bc they don't actually drink their own koolaid they're selling on the street corner.
...
When reading about any flavor of marxism; one simple trick is this:
Marxism promotes violations of at least 3 of the 10 Commandments:
Theft/Stealing
Coveting
Murder/Killing
Expressions like "they need to pay their fair share" directed at the 1% takes something which on the face of it seems like "justice and fairness" but in reality it is coveting, theft, and killing. They tell people to covet they neighbors stuff; otherwise why would you care how many chickens, cattle, tapestries, coins, etc your neighbor has. Then the expression says, to take it, by force of government. And what happens if someone doesn't either get government to take it, and they take it themselves; or what happens when government tries to take it but the person owning it resists the theft... well the owner is going to end up murdered as proven time and again going back to ye ancient time, hence being written on a Stone Tablet to keep the peace and harmorny in society/villiage/town/community/country/nation/family/etc.
All flavors of marxism promote violations of these Commandments to different levels. Hence, the usual simultaineous or pre-emptive attack my marxism upon these basic teachings.
These violations alone are the exact definition of an evil ideology; no matter what level of Intensity.
I hope the above wasn't too many redpills in response for one serving, but you seem interested and also able to understand many things together.
I'm gonna be honest: I didn't read everything you wrote. You started going off on a tangent that was unrelated to what I said (e.g. how Marxism/communism only grow by stealing, etc.) and it just got too long-winded and became word salad. Not trying to be rude, just honest.
From what I did read, you are still mischaracterizing everything, and saying that Marxists redefine words to suit their ideologies/arguments when that is exactly what you're doing lol. One example is how you said populism is always Marxism. This is false. Populism simply refers to what the general populace want. It has nothing to do with Marxism. It's just that Marxists simply impose their desires as being the desires of the populace. That does not mean populism is Marxism.
Ancient Greece was a direct democracy. That in and of itself, is populism. But they were not Marxists.
There's also another thing I would like to point out; you said that the two sects of Islam are still Islam, but as someone who has studied Islam this is blatantly false. The "Islam" that Iran follows (Shi'a) is not actually Islam at all, they simply say it is while using the same historical figures. It would be like a Muslim saying that he's a modern-day Christian simply because Jesus is in the Qur'an. It's just wrong. This mistake is also the same type of mistake you are making with fascism, communism, socialism, and Marxism.
Thx, I do appreciate your honesty feedback.
See this is why it's called bluepills vs redpills. For over 130+ years now, Populism = Marxism usually mixed with muh democracy. Populism doesn't mean popular, nor is it another word for "the majority" (aka 50% +1) of democracy; nor the say middle of the bell curve from a math/statisical population point of vew. It's marxism's class warfare, it's the 99% vs 1%, it's haves vs havenots. At least 25% of people when they hear Populism/Populist as words/terms, they don't hear the marxism. It does NOT mean as Steve Bannon uses it. imo S.B. basicially is using it as a way to introductory redpill people whom are bluepilled. Many European/Parliamentary types also use/get labeled with "populism" but MAGA/DJT and similar are not Populism/populist.
You can read a few paragraphs, or read through lots of old books, pamphlets, speeches, etc from 130 years ago and onward, but can start with the simple wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Party_(United_States)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodniks
Redpill: There is no such thing as "right-wing" populism; it's all marxism leftie. Over the recent decades, there's been much effort by the marxists, as with so many other terms, to redefine the definition and expand the propaganda.
Populism = Marxism (usually mixed with democracy, but really it's just another candy coated branding of marxism.)
..
See your paragraph on Islam, is a well written exact redpill. If you ask either sect, they'll say they are the true one; and point out how they are NOT like the other. But to most people not in the two sects; see them as far more similar than different (neither one would exist without the same historical person/author). Same for with how "strict" an adherent one is to all the tenents prescribed. This is the same as those under the umbrella of Marxism, vs those outside of it; and how strict the flavors hold to the tenents prescribed by the author(Marx or Marx and Engels).