Is the challenge from YT Vlogger ‘bald and bankrupt‘, in this video, filmed recently in Cuba. ‘bald’ as he is referred to, appears to be a chap from Brighton (if you watch his oeuvre) who walks around various parts of our Earth and makes short documentaries about what he sees. He speaks fluent Russian (it seems to me, and his former wife we have been told is Belarusian) but not such good Spanish, and his sidekick is a Belarusian woman who does speak enough Spanish to get by and who interprets for him.
He presents Cuba by the simple device of walking around and going into several retail outlets to show what is on offer, and it looks pretty grim. He also talks to locals, most of whom seem well-drilled in what to say about the Revolution and to profess their loyalty to Fidel. He notes that everyone seems to want to escape. There is an unresolved side-issue of an abandoned kitten in the video.
And yet 10,000,000 people in the UK voted last December for a party just itching to get us to this economic state, without the sunshine. And in the USA, there seems to be far too much enthusiasm for socialism.
Bald’s ‘back catalogue’ contains a great travelogue for much of the former USSR. Whilst he admires all things ‘Soviet’ in terms of architecture (there is a running ‘gag’ about his excitement at finding himself in a Soviet-era bus station, he does acknowledge the grim reality of Soviet rule.
I was surprised at how clean it looked. I suppose minimalist is easier to keep tidy.
Yep. Hard to clutter things up if you don’t have the things necessary to become clutter. Though I suppose certain types of hoarding behavior are likely in that society.
It is never one step to full collectivism – Castro was simply taking to its “logical” conclusion the policies that Batista has been preaching since his own revolution in the early 1930s – and Batista (in turn) was taking its “logical” conclusion the Social Reform policies in Cuba of the late 1920s.
Take the example of the beliefs of the supposedly “ultra capitalist” Michael Bloomberg (the Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat) – with his endless Billions of Dollars from the Credit Bubble Federal Reserve “capitalism” without ever making anything – most modern billionaire “capitalists” are people who have never produced anything, never managed a factory or anything like that, and DESPISE people who do produce things.
Mr Bloomberg believes in high taxes and government spending – to “help the poor”, but he does NOT believe that the poor should have more money, they (according to Mr Bloomberg) would just spend the money on the wrong food or the wrong drink (fatty and sugar filled milkshakes and so on) – the government should decide what people should have FOR THEIR OWN GOOD.
What is the logical conclusion of the ideas (the beliefs) of Michael Bloomberg? BERNIE SANDERS is the logical conclusion of the beliefs of Michael Bloomberg – no matter how much they may hate each other.
Think about it – if the rich should be taxed at any ever higher rate, and the poor should be told what they may eat and drink (and where and how they should live – Mr Bloomberg was a massive fan of government housing projects) the logical conclusion of this is obvious – CUBA.
The present Mayor of New York City was an open admirer of Fidel Castro (and his beliefs have not really changed) – Mr Bloomberg would DENY that he admires Castro (he would even deny that to himself), but his ideas would end up in the same place – it would just take longer.
Sanders, Buttigieg, Cablecar (or whatever her name is), Bloomberg… – they may hate each other and say horrible things about each other, but they would all take society to the same place – collectivism. The ruler or rulers deciding everything about the lives of ordinary people.
In Britain Disraeli style “Conservative Social Reform” (echoed by Richard Nixon a century later) is socialism-by-the-installment-plan.
The “Social Reform” (higher taxes, more government spending, endless edicts telling people how to live) does not make things better – it makes things worse than they otherwise would have been.
So, contrary to Prime Minister Balfour (or Bismark before him) Social Reform does not fend off socialism – it helps socialism.
One does not stave off socialism by making government bigger – Social Reform. One staves off socialism by making government smaller. CUT government spending and taxes, South Dakota managed that even in the late 1930s (in the teeth of the Depression). Radically deregulate the economy (as Germany did in 1948) and restore honest money.
Whilst places such as New York City (where, due to its taxation and regulations, no rational person would set up large scale production) can have endless money from NOTHING (from the Credit Bubble antics of the Federal Reserve and Wall Street) then people such as Mr Bloomberg will continue to infest the society.
The brainwashing of the (collectivist dominated) education system (the schools and the universities) and the “mainstream” media are indeed evil – but so are the wealthy men who push these ideas themselves.
Mr Bloomberg is not an exception – horribly he is more like the norm among the super rich (with their endless money from NOTHING). “Social Reform” leading step-by-step to full Collectivism.
When I speak with such pople, I sometimes remark “You all seem to think that you’re going to be Stalin. But somebody has to be Yezhov.” It has yet to change any minds. Like criminals who are sure that they will never be caught, socialists appear certain that they will end up on top of the totalitarian dystopia that they are bringing into being.
Gosh, has “bald” found an occasion to need an unannounced, unprepared, visit to a Cuban Hospital?
For those that may feel that Socialism is merely a progressive step to Communist “model”….Fiction-“We The Living”-Rand.
It’s all the fault of the U. S. embargo.
Mr Ed: “And yet 10,000,000 people in the UK voted last December for a party just itching to get us to this economic state, without the sunshine. ”
The rest voted for a party that pretends to be Conservative, but is really Socialist, and intends to pass the ‘online harms’ bill into law. The ‘deep state’, actually that is ‘the state’ wants us to get our information filtered through the BBC once again.
Ah! The good old days when Aunty was someone.
People go for socialism for control not for results.
When you let the below average half of any group have a say in the outcome, you get below average outcomes.
Mr Black writes:
Forgive me for being so direct, but I think that is individual below-average thinking.
If all views of the population are considered (with equal weight), one will get average thinking. By excluding from the lower end (of thinking quality), one will get above average thinking – and the amount above average will depend on the extent of exclusion of below average views.
Conversely, by excluding from the higher end (of thinking quality), one will get below average thinking – and the amount below average will depend on the extent of exclusion of above average views.
Best regards
-Gandalf, The Fellowship of the Ring
Collectivists always set out working toward the perfection of mankind, and always end up shooting masses of counterrevolutionaries in the back of their heads.
There should be a name for this kind of far-left green authoritarian and “patriotic” socialism.
How about “National Socialism”?
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh wait …
“You all seem to think that you’re going to be Stalin. But somebody has to be Yezhov.”
It’s probably worth checking how many of them have the least idea who Yezhov was.
My guess would be a percentage approaching zero; “those who do not study history etc etc”
Some of the “best” (richest, cleverest) of us are the providers of the stupidest and most dangerous political ideas.
The upper class and upper middle class love the ideas of murderous socialism.
To few are humble and wise enough to see the bloody obvious pitfalls of the bloody 20th century.
How about “National Socialism”?
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh wait …
Hang on a minute, that would involve a measure of anti-semitism which …
Oh wait …
the-other-rob
“George Orwell” (Eric Blair – a socialist himself) summed it up.
“When people say “under socialism” they always assume that everyone else will be under socialism – with themselves ON TOP OF it”.
Michael Bloomberg would deny being a socialist (even deny it to himself) but his ever-bigger-government “Progressive Social Reform” leads to socialism – which he assumes he will be in charge of. Or some puppet of his (and the rest of the “Progressive” super rich of Wall Street and Silicon Valley) will be in charge of – such as “Mayor Pete” (the puppet of a group of about 46 Billionaires – whose Wall Street and Silicon Valley ever-bigger-government Progressive doctrine he pushes).
These people never consider the possibility that they might NOT be in control.
Even if they were in control it would still be Hell-on-Earth – because NO, contrary to the Progressive Super Rich, government is NOT “like a business”, and it can NOT be used to “make the lives of the people better”.
Government (the state) is based on force and fear – and its efforts to “make the lives of the people better” inevitably make the lives of the population WORSE than they otherwise would have been.
For example, in my life time California has gone from being the best place for ordinary people in the history of the world – to having the WORST poverty (taking into account the cost of living) in the United States.
Yet people such a Michael Bloomberg (and ALL the Democrat candidates) still regard the endless taxes, government spending, and regulations of California as the way to go.
They really do regard California as the model – they wish all of the United States to be like California. They openly say so.
And they will not stop there – to them California does-not-go-far-enough.
Progressive doctrine really is socialism-by-the-installment-plan – and the education system (most schools and universities) and the “mainstream” media, is determined to turn the United States into a place like Cuba.
I should think that Bloomberg regards NY City, 2002 to 2013, as the way to go.
Similarly, Sanders and Buttigieg probably think of Burligton, VT, and South Bend, IN, as the way to go; when they were in charge.
OK, you can think of this comment as comic relief.
Snorri Godhi.
If you do not believe me about Mr Bloomberg holding up California as a model – then look it up for yourself, Mr Bloomberg has made public speeches saying this.
As for Mr Bloomberg’s record as Mayor of New York City – I have mentioned that he went in for vast “public housing” schemes and much other spending. The debt position of New York City can be found at the Accuracy in Accountancy website – setting up benefits that will grow over time is an old trick of Progressives (by the time the bills fall due they are off to some other, higher, position).
I am afraid I know little of the record of former Mayors Sanders and Mayor Buttigieg (I apologise – I should know, but I do not) – but I do know their political positions on Federal government policy, all of which are as I have stated.
“OK, you can think of this comment as comic relief”.
I do not understand Sir. I apologise if I have missed a joke – I do not have much of a sense of humour, a character flaw of mine.