What are you watching?

[silke]

I saw this awhile back and thought SEI.

I was directed to this video after watching some videos on ball lightning, not sure what was the connection there. Was browsing some pictures from the Kepler site - https://www.nasa.gov/content/kepler-multimedia - too bad it ended, they collected bunches of interesting data though. The presenter is one of the Ip types for sure. I thought ILI for her at first, her talking style is too flat for Fe, but then noticed she has that determined glow in her eyes like Rasputin, so SLI-Te it was.

[Jaqen]

I was directed to this video after watching some videos on ball lightning, not sure what was the connection there. Was browsing some pictures from the Kepler site - https://www.nasa.gov/content/kepler-multimedia - too bad it ended, they collected bunches of interesting data though. The presenter is one of the Ip types for sure. I thought ILI for her at first, her talking style is too flat for Fe, but then noticed she has that determined glow in her eyes like Rasputin, so SLI-Te it was.

I was picking up on the Si there. SLI then. Some Ne mobilizing in her sentences. That spaced out shoulder power suit...

She vibes like Sara Gilbert.

[Sisyphean]

[Muddy]

[Muddy]

[Muddy]

[Skepsis]

[Muddy]

[Muddy]

[Bento]

[silke]

[Skepsis]

I was directed to this video after watching some videos on ball lightning, not sure what was the connection there. Was browsing some pictures from the Kepler site - https://www.nasa.gov/content/kepler-multimedia - too bad it ended, they collected bunches of interesting data though. The presenter is one of the Ip types for sure. I thought ILI for her at first, her talking style is too flat for Fe, but then noticed she has that determined glow in her eyes like Rasputin, so SLI-Te it was.

I think your first impression was correct. I think an ILI with high Si makes the most sense. She's a dreamy stargazer with a gravitation toward the unknown, imo.

[Muddy]

@Sol Any truth to this?

[Sol]

Any knowledge regarding this?

I only know about one company against _some_ Jews in USSR. By the ideology USSR was tolerant to nationalities and protected their unique culture, besides indoctrinating the higher importance of Soviet identity (alike USA does with "american" identity) and even internationalism as a higher value for communistic party's ideas (communism on all Earth, as better for the majority of people than capitalism which supresses them in favor of minority's interests). When it has become clear that starts "Cold War" (which was partly not so cold like in Korea and can even begin new global war), that new created Israel lays under USA control (instead becoming pro-USSR) and taking into account how many Jews in USSR may migrate there (seems >1/4 of Israel talked in Russian) - there were actions against keeping some doubtful Jews at high posts as that was dangerous. That happened as a part of fight against too pro-western oriented people at meaningful social posts. By the said reasons among Jews was significant quantity of politically doubtful ones. The similar mirror process and partly in the same time happened in USA against pro-USSR and having a sympathy to communism ones.

[Muddy]

I only know about one company against _some_ Jews in USSR. By the ideology USSR was tolerant to nationalities and protected their unique culture, besides indoctrinating the higher importance of Soviet identity (alike USA does with "american" identity) and even internationalism as a higher value for communistic party's ideas (communism on all Earth, as better for the majority of people than capitalism which supresses them in favor of minority's interests). When it has become clear that starts "Cold War" (which was partly not so cold like in Korea and can even begin new global war), that new created Israel lays under USA control (instead becoming pro-USSR) and taking into account how many Jews in USSR may migrate there (seems >1/4 of Israel talked in Russian) - there were actions against keeping some doubtful Jews at high posts as that was dangerous. That happened as a part of fight against too pro-western oriented people at meaningful social posts. By the said reasons among Jews was significant quantity of politically doubtful ones. The similar mirror process and partly in the same time happened in USA against pro-USSR and having a sympathy to communism ones.

Cool, I ask because there is propaganda and misinformation everywhere on all sides and I think it's good to get information from a variety of sources.

If I may ask what is your knowledge regarding the Holodomor and the purges that took place in the Soviet Union? Here in USA we are taught that millions died in the Soviet Union because of Stalin, part of which were due to collectivization famines and part of which were political purges. What is the narrative they teach about this Russia? Was Stalin the sole person at fault? Anything information about it that someone from a country like USA may not know?

[Bento]

[Sol]

If I may ask what is your knowledge regarding the Holodomor and the purges that took place in the Soviet Union?

"holodomor" (more correct transliteration is "golodomor". the term means a hunger leading to death). Multiple factors problem.
There were hunger times in low industrial era of Russia due to hard climate. Industrialization to good level here happened to the middle-end of 1930s only and then new technologies have solved the hunger problem. In 1929-1934 the massive hunger deaths were in several republics of USSR, including Russian republic. The problem became worse due to reforms and organization problems of fast industrialization - we needed machines and many new factories to resist in the future possible war which started soon and was prognosed - just in 10 years were built thousands of new factories, this needed people for them to built, to work - they were taken from vilages. While vilages got new technologies so lesser people were needed to produce the needed food. Plus there was resistance to reforms by sabotage due to personal and sometimes political reasons (most probably partly coordinated from other competing countries). Plus we paid for foreign help with industrialization significantly by the food - it was our important export in those times. The prices on that food have droped, the climate, organization problems, sabotage, but without factories we'd lost the war and far more people died. The quantity of deaths was high, but in % not much and several times fewer than antisoviet propaganda may say.

Political "purges" of 1937-1939.
There was recently civil war and many people kept negative relation to current political rule. Some did real sabotage, some indirectly alike strangely bad working and mistakes, some were criminals as thiefs which made so serious problems that were related to politics. There was a lot of really dangerous people and really hard situation. So there were actions to protect the current rule. These actions were not perfect as anywhere. When the international situation became worse to the end of 30s and the war became very close (the massive actions started in 1937, the war began just after 4 years) - there was allowed to act against dangerous people with lesser wisdom and tolerancy. Someones used the situation to remove personal enemies or competitors, partly seems there was a sabotage (which exists objectively - there was no political peace inside and no outside), partly there was bad work due to higher than average requirements for new commers in police. The high dangerous situation + the lack of time and resources. They acted roughly as saw no other way. They have done the needed work by the cost of many mistakes. Mostly this related to people at higher posts, - which needed to be cleaned as had the most power and were more dangerous. The common people lived as nothing happened (>95% of ~200 mln of USSR). The number of people which was prisoned or died against their real guilty was significant due to hard conditions of the events, but lesser than propaganda may say. The very majority should be real political and other criminals. The number of really prisoned (not just hold for asking for some weeks or allowed to live in places far from the center) is lesser than propaganda may say. The number of people ordered to be killed by the law is several times lesser (< 1 million during 30 years which had times after civil war and during WW2). The same with the number of died in prisoning. Also the numbers which are said often summarize all the time since 1922 to 1953 years when Stalin was as the leader - post civil war resistance, disorganisation, poverty and hence real banditism, the lack of food in 40s due to war and after time leaded to more deaths among prisoners, to political criminals were also added many ones who acted against Russians during the WW2. There was a problem of unjustice but alike 10 times lesser than antisoviet propaganda says, and there were objective limitations for this situation to happen. It's the price which was almost impossibly to avoid. To live in hard times needs to pay prices higher than average to win. In other countries were hard times too and there were own high prices alike unjustice and massacre in USA's civil war, in French civil war, political and religious wars in Europe, etc. In some sense the civil war in Russia lasted since 1917 to 1947, with hoter and colder periods.

> Here in USA we are taught that millions died in the Soviet Union because of Stalin

Stalin was a single man. There were many people at power. Sometimes it was the useful work and their duty. Sometimes they did the work worse than could by different reasons, including objective limitations. Seems ~3-4 million of people died due to different reasons in prisoning or by law during 30(!) years, where on execution relates <1 million. Where innocents were the minority, while the most were real criminals the harm of which costed not lesser. It was very hard times and large country. For the comparision, every year in USA, a prosperous country, without any wars in them 10k people are killed by the law - 300k during the same time. In car incidents for the same time dies seems >1.2 million of people in USA. What is % of mistakes in law system of USA, without disorganisation of reforms, without pre-war hurry, without many newcomers having only basic qualification? How many ones are prisoned or got guilty verdict unjustifuly or directly against the law during 30 years? I suspect it may be 10% of them - 70k per year, - 2 million during 30 years. The comparision and the general situation are needed for the objective perception.

> part of which were due to collectivization famines

There was the industrialization. Obligate part of this was the collectivization which allowed to use lesser people in vilages to produce the same food quantity. While other people were set on factories. Such reforms are not easy and happen not perfectly, especially when are needed to be done as fast as possibly before the coming war. Besides other negative factors I've mentioned.

> and part of which were political purges

The very most of which was by the law, but not unjustiful. Alike: when an offenced by reforms farmer gets the weapon, steals the state property or acts other against the law - he goes to a prison/camp (in case he killed noone) while his family goes to lesser populated places with restrictions where they may to live during, for example, 10 years. While the propaganda creates the image for all like "innocent political victims".

> What is the narrative they teach about this Russia? Was Stalin the sole person at fault?

Besides Stalin was not perfect and not allmighty, his main guilty was that he as a leader helped to create strong and fastly developing country which became serious competitor. Another his guilty was that he was strict with elites, demanded a lot from them and limited them from geting redundant material resources - many in elites hated him for this and supported the propaganda against him. Stalin was positive for the majority of the nation from many points. He was one of the most effective Russian leaders. One of the progressive leaders of the world which created the real socialistic state, Lenin died too soon, it's Stalin who made USSR as we remember it. After he allowed to win the most dangerous and big war in Russian history, then he established international place for Russia which it never had before. Russia/USSR became 2nd country of the world by the might of industry, technology, military, progressive in humanistic ideology. He helped to create several other socialistic states where people lived some better than before or had more possibilities for this. His actions allowed to supress antihumanistic harm which do capitalism and liberalism. Stalin deserves more of positive than he gets, the 1st of all from Russians. USA and "golden billion" states having capitalism as ideology and being a competitors of Russia support and spread the negative propaganda against Stalin, what is expected.

> Anything information about it that someone from a country like USA may not know?

There should be modern articles and books in Russian language with mostly positive relation to Stalin and USSR. Do not know about English sources. My understanding is formed under the influence of lectures of: Kurginyan, Starikov, Fursov, Puchkov's channel (where historians, philosofers, etc take part also).
I was under mass medias influence (in Russian they are pro-western mostly) until ~2010 with antisoviet attitudes. Then (mb with age, when you start to think more collective) I got an interest to politics and have know about other points, about the basis behind them. When I've summarized the info from both sides - I've chosen the pro-soviet one, which appeared to be more humanistic and better for my nation.

You may ask for pro-soviet sources to read in English (in case those exist) at Kurginyan's organisation. They are communists and tried to oppose to antisoviet propaganda a lot. English is among known languages by the most educated Russians, so they'll understand what you want. You should not be the 1st who wants them to help with the info from other side.
official: email1, email2;
social network group (it's alike Russian facebook, you need to register and may to talk with their activists)
it's serious organisation. the leader is good known at TV. they are rather open for contacts

[Muddy]

> Here in USA we are taught that millions died in the Soviet Union because of Stalin

For the comparision, every year in USA, a prosperous country, without any wars in them 10k people are killed by the law - 300k during the same time. In car incidents for the same time dies seems >1.2 million of people in USA. What is % of mistakes in law system of USA, without disorganisation of reforms, without pre-war hurry, without many newcomers having only basic qualification? How many ones are prisoned or got guilty verdict unjustifuly or directly against the law during 30 years? I suspect it may be 10% of them - 70k per year, - 2 million during 30 years. The comparision and the general situation are needed for the objective perception.

I think you could be onto something here in regards to the US not being any better then the Soviet Union with political purges. During WW2 my own grandmother even personally knew someone whom was accused of being German spy and was executed. It seems they like to use the "we are at war" excuse as an opportunity to cleanse opposition to the state in so called "democratic" nations and then sweep it all under the rug afterwards. The heads of the government and corporate media are nothing but a bunch of fucking hypocrites and liars.

[Muddy]

[Sol]

I think you could be onto something here in regards to the US not being any better then the Soviet Union with political purges.

The situation in USSR was harder than in USA of 20 century. So USSR needed to act more directly, roughly and sometimes with higher intensity alike in pre-WW2 years 37-39. It was a painful surgery made in a hurry, as the situation was too dangerous for softer ways, there was no time and resources to act softer and mb with lesser mistakes. About mistakes: the actions of Yezhov - the head of political police - were said as inappropriate since 1939, many people were said as not guilty and freed soon. Officially to Yezhov was assinged a taking part in a preparation to overturn, what could be the true partly - but the main problem was the lack of time for better work, - the war near USSR borders have started in 1939 and 2 years after it was on our territory.

My own grandfather by father was under the research in those years, as he was from aristocratic class, while the civil war which has changed much of Russian elites happened not long ago. They have found nothing bad against him and so he had no problems. But not anyone got the appropriate research - too many ones to check in a short time, not enough of good qualificated people, someones did not acted according to duty (inner political fight, corruption, external influences, etc). So problems happened to some % of innocents, which was higher than usually due to difficult pre-war situation and the solutions were harder than easier times allow.

> During WW2 my own grandmother even personally knew someone whom was accused of being German spy and was executed.

Besides of spying and sabotaging for foreign countries, there was inner political fight after recent civil war. A lot of problematic people (who having a post used it against duties or did the duties worse than should and could, for example - the corruption was in the past also) and having high potential to betray, to be not loyal during war times. They all were needed to be researched quickly to reduce this problem. This was done, not perfectly, with low tolerance and rough punishments according to the situation. As among victims (including by the justice, not innocents) was a lot from elites many of which have the influence on medias - they've blamed what was done loudy even inside USSR. Stalin's monuments were removed since ~1961, he was said like the only reason for problems what was nonsence and unjustice. Many in elites felt offenced personally on Stalin - he was chosen as a symbol of the needed but painful cleanings done among them and people they knew, also they did not liked the strict control from the center above them, high demands so they'd did the work better, while used their posts lesser for personal aims.

> It seems they like to use the "we are at war" excuse as an opportunity to cleanse opposition to the state in so called "democratic" nations and then sweep it all under the rug afterwards. The heads of the government and corporate media are nothing but a bunch of fucking hypocrites and liars.

A democracy is when all people have equal power. It's practically possible only among equals. In other case ones get the power above others, while democracy is only claimed and surfacely looks as existing. Also the degree in which people are equal - is the degree of a democracy possibility.
Mb taken an example of material aspect - the difference in peoples incomes, where ones have millions while other ones some thousands per a year. Millionaires have more possibilities to influence, including on political decisions (they pay for this), what people will me elected, what people will get better image in medias, they have better education to understand how to do this, they have power above own hired workers, above own customers by deciding what those will get really. Due to this the majority of USA presidents are from rich families, they have higher possibility to be elected - not the smartest and most morally decent what people would prefer - people do get even a possibility to choose the ones they'd want, even the calculation of votes is doubtful what was seen in recent Bush's 2nd elections - it's easy to falsificate, just to give money to the needed people or scary them by something. Is it democracy?
The degree of power in capitalistic/liberal socium is not equal - there are classes like in feudalism, just by other main trait - by money, then by education and knowledges. If you have not money on good education - you'll have no even a chance to get good income with best occupations. This is clear descrimination which limits peoples' power in a socium. And it's done intentionally to protect the ones having the money and power, to reduce the competing with them from the ones having lesser incomes.

The liberal capitalistic ideology is based on individualism and hence the interest of minority will be set above the majorty always. Also individualism is linked with the hate, as it opposes own interests and of other ones. The hate leads to making other people suffering and to killing them, to limiting their abbilities so they could be easier be exploitated. To preventing their harmonic psyche state where everything is developed but not when they are accentuated and live alike half-minded robots what makes them to feel worse, to having lesser power in the socium where they may control only a part instead of the whole, where they live as limited functioneers for their limited duties but not as complete humans. It's done by capitalism much - it does not care about humans as humans, those are just living machines which are exploitated and controlled for the interests of a income for the minority, - the minority which accepts and supports the individualistic ideology to exploitate others, the minority which are sociopaths hating people by this individualistic ideology. Capitalism leads the humanity to death and degradation as it is based on the hate to people. The more power those individualists get - the more their antihumanistic nature will be seen, the more of their harm will be seen.
When in Russian capitalists have made the overturn and got the power the population started to reduce. It's now -10 millions after 25 years. They indirectly kill the nation. Capitalists due to antihumanistic nature want to kill and make the harm to people, what partly sublimate by harming the life of other nations. ****** was the open exampliar of capitalistic approach, the aim to what it goes, - he just took a surface collectivism to do with it, to release and support the sociopathic antihumanistic idea that minority should supress and kill the majority, as only a minority are humans. Capitalism is based on the hate to people. Democracy and capitalism are incompatible by their essence.

[Muddy]

When in Russian capitalists have made the overturn and got the power the population started to reduce. It's now -10 millions after 25 years. They indirectly kill the nation. Capitalists due to antihumanistic nature want to kill and make the harm to people, what partly sublimate by harming the life of other nations. ****** was the open exampliar of capitalistic approach, the aim to what it goes, - he just took a surface collectivism to do with it, to release and support the sociopathic antihumanistic idea that minority should supress and kill the majority, as only a minority are humans. Capitalism is based on the hate to people. Democracy and capitalism are incompatible by their essence.

While it is true ******'s Germany was technically capitalist, they did implement various elements of socialism that they viewed as positive. Examples included free college education and wage caps. Banks and big business were regulated far more strictly in National Socialist Germany then what we see in today's capitalist nations. If you got time I recommend watching this video and see what you think afterwards, it goes super in-depth into the details of their economic system.

[Diana]

[Tallmo]

No, Jade, you are not an Introvert. You are... EIE !

[Sol]

While it is true ******'s Germany was technically capitalist, they did implement various elements of socialism that they viewed as positive.

****** used some socialistic ideas as a way of better organisation of the nation (he needed this for wars) and to become more popular to get higher support from the majority. After geting the power he openly has rejected some socialistic ideas, as those were a cover and secondary for him. The core of Nazism is closer to individualistic/liberal idea where an interests of a minority are set above a majority, it's old principle of aristocratism. It's doubtful to name ****** as a nationalist, it was more a tool for him. ****** was created and supported by European and USA aristocracy/elites to oppose to socialism, as socialism means they would loose own status, power and privilegies. Nations for any aristocraty are a tool to compete to other members of their elites club, - they indifferent or even hate the common people by the aristocratic approach and not rare due to psychopathic inclination common among them (one of reasons elites use rather strict upbrininging to study good selfcontrol and so to deal better with other people).

> Examples included free college education and wage caps.

As this have allow to study better ones among wider quantity, instead of choosing among narrow selection of richies. He needed more efficiency for his plans. The similar reason was to support better the majority by reduction of wages of minority - that majority should be healthy and breed better for wars, the aim of which was anti-socialistic.

> Banks and big business were regulated far more strictly in National Socialist Germany

as more centralised control allows higher general efficiency, than when elements of capitalistic economy randomly compete with each other alike cancers

a factory has centralised control. what magics happens that 2 factories need to be independent to give higher efficiency? nothing. they people of both factories would gave higher outcome in case those factories has a single control instead of competing with each other and restricting informational and resource exchange between each other - what happens in socialism. chaos is lesser effective than a centralisation with clear aims and clear information about what happens.

then why lesser effective capitalism exists still? mostly because elites prefer to keep own statuses by the cost of lesser humanity's prosperity, by the cost of inner conflicts of humanity leading many ones to suffering. they also say about problems of planing, what is secondary and doubtful taking into account computer development which allows to overcome this in more complex modern economies. USSR could to do this since 1960s - total economic planing by computer systems, - that would allow to arise economic effeciency in several times. but USSR had elites too - and those prefer to keep the power and not allow to come new generation of rulers to deal with new planing style, they wanted to have the control as in past, to stay conservative.

by the same reason socialism in USSR never developed people to much higher level (while being anthropocentric - it was should to do this), but only went by techological way alike capitalism. they affraided to make so new step, to create new people with psyche, physical, moral and intellectual abbilities higher than the ones at power, - those better ones would got their places at power what they did not want to allow

> If you got time I recommend watching this video and see what you think afterwards, it goes super in-depth into the details of their economic system.

The details are not important in this our conversation. Also it's hard for me to perceive English on sound.

[Muddy]

****** used some socialistic ideas as a way of better organisation of the nation (he needed this for wars) and to become more popular to get higher support from the majority. After geting the power he openly has rejected some socialistic ideas, as those were a cover and secondary for him. The core of Nazism is closer to individualistic/liberal idea where an interests of a minority are set above a majority, it's old principle of aristocratism. It's doubtful to name ****** as a nationalist, it was more a tool for him. ****** was created and supported by European and USA aristocracy/elites to oppose to socialism, as socialism means they would loose own status, power and privilegies. Nations for any aristocraty are a tool to compete to other members of their elites club, - they indifferent or even hate the common people by the aristocratic approach and not rare due to psychopathic inclination common among them (one of reasons elites use rather strict upbrininging to study good selfcontrol and so to deal better with other people).

If ****** was supported by the Allies (US/UK etc) as a means to combat socialism, then how come the allies didn't try to wipe out the USSR immediately following Germany's surrender while the USSR was exhausted of manpower and didn't have nukes yet while the US did? There were some individuals that did want to go war with the USSR such as George Patton, but the ruling establishment went so far as to actively discredit, or as in Patton's case, outright assassinate them.

There's far more evidence to suggest that Allies and USSR were collaborating against ****** instead of the other way around, even before the war. In 1936 ****** tried to get Britain on board with the Anti-Comintern pact but they refused. That also had the ramification of causing Japan to expand southward instead of attacking the USSR as they originally planned as they needed British support to do so practically.

The US/UK were already sanctioning ****** immediately when he came to power in 1933. This was because ****** kicked out same Jewish banking cartel in Germany that was controlling, and still is controlling, the US and the UK. If you look through old newspapers from jewish owned media outlets such as The New York Times, you see many instances of them writing articles about "the abuse towards jews" with the intent of making people sympathetic towards certain political parties. Before ****** they were trying to convince people that the Tsarist/White Russians were going to exterminate jews, even using the same 6,000,000 number they use for the Holocaust. Here's an example:

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/tim.../109814455.pdf

The Allies were dead-set on war against National Socialist Germany from day one and ****** knew this. Remember, Britain and France declared war on Germany and not the other way around. Had the UK not been bombing them to shit and the US wasn't supplying the USSR with weapons from lend-lease ****** very likely would of crushed the USSR, considering how far he got in our timeline.

If you could provide examples that show where and how the Allies were endorsing National Socialist Germany that would be helpful.

[bgbg]

edti: actually, that was really good.

[Sol]

If ****** was supported by the Allies (US/UK etc) as a means to combat socialism, then how come the allies didn't try to wipe out the USSR immediately following Germany's surrender while the USSR was exhausted

It would cost too much as USSR (+ his allies in Europe, China) was strong.

> There's far more evidence to suggest that Allies and USSR were collaborating against ******

This does not exclude that USA and some Europe's elites created ****** to supress becoming popular socialism and to weaken USSR by the war. On of the examples: when in Spain socialists were elected by the nation to the power - ****** helped to make an overturn there by military forces. Also ****** openly expressed the hate to communists/socialists (socialists - is the initial name of communistic parties) and made them problems in Germany, what officially started by falsificated assigning them the fire in the parliament.

It was expected that ****** will lose the war in general after being weakned, so USA and other elites after joinging to the war later got the control over the Europe and mb over USSR in case ****** was more successful there. It was a surprise how USSR was able fastly return own territory and to establish influence in Eastern Europe. USSR appeared to be stronger than was expected. By the result USA took the significant influence over western Europe and USSR was seriously weakened what reduced socialistic movements in the world - this parts of the plan was made.

> In 1936 ****** tried to get Britain on board with the Anti-Comintern pact but they refused.

Elites of capitalistic countries, including Britain, actated against communists themselves. They did not needed ****** for this.
It's known about the populatiry of ****** among some British elites and ******'s sympathy to them, about agreements between them. Some of them are so serious that stay secret still.

> That also had the ramification of causing Japan to expand southward instead of attacking the USSR as they originally planned as they needed British support to do so practically.

They had better plan - to get not only the Europe, but also Japan what was done. To support Japan in the war against USSR would be against this. Meanwhile they could think Japan will be not needed to supress USSR, they underesteemated its possibilities.

> The US/UK were already sanctioning ****** immediately when he came to power in 1933.

As in the future Germany should be gotten by USA, some minor and surface opposing for publicity could to happen. Besides other play. Generally, ****** had a lot of support by money, technologies from USA and others during 1930s. USA even had own parties alike ******'s one.

> Before ****** they were trying to convince people that the Tsarist/White Russians were going to exterminate jews, even using the same 6,000,000 number they use for the Holocaust.

For ****** this had far more basis.
There was a marginal minority of extremistic Jew haters among tsarists. While among "Whites" tsarists were marginal minority themselves. Tsarism was not popular to 1917, what have allowed liberal revolution in Februrary of 1917. So called "whites" were mostly the followers of liberal or other ideas.

> The Allies were dead-set on war against National Socialist Germany from day one and ****** knew this.

The opposite. Mainly, ****** hoped on the union with USA and Europe to fight against USSR. There was a game with ****** until the 1941, so he kept this hope and leaded the Germany to a trap.

> Remember, Britain and France declared war on Germany and not the other way around.

And practically they did no strong opposing, while could. France have surrendered quickly and helped to Germany further. While Britain had limited real conflicting. It was more a show until USSR have pushed Germany from own land.

> Had the UK not been bombing them to shit and the US wasn't supplying the USSR with weapons

USA needed Germany to be weakened too - so they supported the both sides, to help them exhaust each other.
If Germany made the war some worser in the beginning - the support could to go to it from USA, but not to USSR. If Stalin have started the war (as he understood the high possibility of it coming) before Germany was prepared for it - such situation could to happen.
Also there was not so much of help against ****** from USA until 1943. Only when it became clear ****** looses - then the support became significant. This help allowed to better control USSR, but changed nothing principally already.

> from lend-lease ****** very likely would of crushed the USSR, considering how far he got in our timeline.

There is no good basis to think so.

> If you could provide examples that show where and how the Allies were endorsing National Socialist Germany that would be helpful.

I may recommended you to ask about the sources of what you are asking at Kurginyan's, Starikov's and other organisations the links to which I've given to you above. My opinion is based on the info gotten from them. They researched that and close themes seriously and should to help you on good level.

Besides them, you may search for the info yourself in Internet, especially taking into account the sources I'd had would be in Russian. Internet and some books should to have a data about financial and technological support from USA to Germany during ****** being at power there. Also about the help to him and Nazi party in earlier times. Including mass medias support, contacts with elites, possible agreements. As not all of this support was done openly and some still stays officially secret, you will not find all, but enough to link with logics of what have happened practically.

The arguments to oppose that ****** was not created and supported by USA and other Europe's elites to fight against socialism in Europe and world, including to fight against the main socialistic state USSR, - I don't find as comparably strong.
To understand the other view point you'll can with the help of the organisations above - they are specialized on informational opposing to capitalism, current USA politics, etc. My knowledge is not so detailed and mb not so systematic to the degree you'd wanted to convince you.

-

additionally to socialism vs capitalism

One of the problems of liberal/individualistc/capitalistic ideology is that the elites, the minority intentionally supresses the level of majority in development to have better control among them in their weaker state. The levels of education, morality and health are tried to be kept artifically lower.

To oppose to this exploitation is needed the opposite. To make majority stronger, - so people will have more abbilities to resist and will can better protect the socialistic socium and develop it. USSR did not developed significanly people as persons, - the main reason the socialism was lost in Russia and now the life of majority have become much worse here (what is evident by reducing of peoples' number).

The common sociopathic attitude and such personal inclination of many in elites mb thought as infantile psyche trait of individualism/egocentrism, which is more expessed at childhood. Those elites mb thought as morally retarted. It's not suprising that capitalism based on retarted psyche state is lesser effective than collectivism and socialism. There is a hope, that sociopathy (as egocentric attitude) mb overcome by better upbringing and psyche methods. It should be possibly to change the situation with elites exploitation to better socium by cultural/education/psyche methods ways, without wars with elites and the ones controlled by them (with modern weapons it's also too dangerous) when they'd hold for keeping their power above others.

The ideal socium have people which have anything as strong - may to do relatively equally any work, are gifted good in anything. The more people are equal as persons in strenghts - the lesser basis for situation when a minority gets the most power and may expoitate the majority.

The reduction of Jung's types - is one of ways to make people stronger, more equal, more collectivistic (morally better), happier. The way to make better sociums - more effective and happier ones. Where the democracy is lesser on a paper than in today capitalism.
Socionics with its duality is the much easier way to this. Duality people join minds in love state and the marriage, study each other in weak functions regions. Also it mb useful if people had 2 jobs (in the same time or by periods): one for strong functions and the other for weak functions to activate and develop them.

-

I've noticed you have an interest to politics mostly, but not to more global and deep reasons behind political processes. But about politics we've exchanged by opinions enough - there are better sources for you to research and to ask them. So we may finish this talking.

[moloko]

i just started watching Hemlock Grove and i feel like its one of those shows that try too hard to be edgy but for some reason i cant stop lol?

gypsy boy is my fave chara so far but then again im only on ep 1

roman is weird but his mom is hot so thats cool
(i wonder what her type is... HMM)

[Skepsis]

[Sisyphean]

[Muddy]

[MrsTortilla]

One of my favorite shows right now... Dix Pour Cent (Call My Agent! is the English title) on Netflix. Really clever and funny, too. Plus interesting if you like film because it delves into how agencies work. Lots of Gamma actors cast in it.

<a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oEBC_J1rs_I" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oEBC_J1rs_I

Edit: What am I doing wrong in trying to imbed this YouTube clip??

[Muddy]

[ApeironStella]

This is a really, really good animatic and I am really curious about how that entire AU works hngg

[Muddy]

[Skepsis]

[Skepsis]

[Skepsis]

[Sol]

[Muddy]