never has been a communist country or for that matter a democratic country. years from now i'm sure there will be videos of smiling american leaders spreading their love and democracy all over the world.
So you posted the redacted photo of Yezhov, who Stalin had shot, like it's a bad thing, yet you post countless more photos of the people Yezhov had killed, despite Stalin's orders against such things. Nice job being a troll.
Stalin the Jew son of a bitch. Murderer, Bank robber, terrorist. War crimes, holodomor, atheism. he sacrified his own son and shot his own wife. what a sick bastard.
It's just glorifies his commitment to his country. His son was a Nazi collaborator and sacrificing him demonstrates how he would not let any traitor go unpunished... even his own son.
His son was no collaborateur. He only should be changed against Paulus. All these traitors who wanted food and believed in orthodox church. And these traitors who were catched by the Wehrmacht after they fought 3 years in the dirt. But the worst are these traitors who critizated his politics of Imperialism, Gulag culture and war.
His son was no collaborateur. He was captured and should be changed against general paulus who was captured by soviets.
In the eyes of Stalin everybody was a traitor. He let kill more than 15 Million people, priests, children, women, people who critizated him or protestet. He let kill ten-thousands of soviet soldiers who were in german concentration camps. He sacrified 14 Million soldiers only to conquer East-Germany, Poland and cecheslovakia. The soviet Union was real horror.
out of all the things you could have criticized stalin for, you mention his refusal to exchange his son for one of Hitler's highest ranking generals, as if that was a character flaw. if anything it shows Stalin's resolve to win the war and makes him look more patriotic
Wait 'til you get the "Stalin was a Jew" argument. Most Jews don't study to become Georgian Orthodox priests. The anti-Stalinists either use Conquest, which is crazy shit, or these anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, which are far crazier. You should check out the Ted Pike "documentaries" on youtube. They are so anti-Jewish, but they criticize anti-semitism in a few sections. Like, "The Nazis shouldn't have killed the Jews. They should've waited for God to do it"!
Torquemada was a Jew ,too. The jewish ghost is the destruction of morality. They do everything to get more influence. Furing inquisition thousands of jews converted they tricked the christians after 200 years they converted back . Same was in prussia when friedrich allowed jews to become ministers. The only condition was they should convert. These Jews convert to trick the people. Bush is a jew , too. search here on youtube for "bush is jew". There are pics were he is with a talmud in his hand.
Stalin was not patriotic he was a typical crypto Jew that runs the world. They want to create a One-World and and multicultural slaves under the controll of Jews like its said in the thora and Talmud. Take his name djugaschvily. djuga = jew, vily = son. He three times was married with jewish girl.
9/11 was a conspiracy. Its a fact.Done by Mr. Bush a crypto judeoChristian. His grandfather is jew. He celebrates chanukka and reads the Talmud.Your Mr.Chavez and Mr. Ahmedinedschad know that ,too.
Chavez didn't exactly say that. He clarified that statement, and he made it clear he didn't mean the Jews. He meant the imperialists. The Iranian president denies the Holocaust but he's not even an anti-Semite/Anti-Jewish person. Israel is what you're pissed off about. It pisses me off, too. However, I know Jews who hate Israel. Jewish people may have become part of the ruling class, but they are not THE ruling class entirely.
Chavez knows but when he says he knows he get bombed.
Ahmedinedschad has a big Army Venezuela didnt has. He is not in the positon to speak that out. And most of the people wouldnt understand Chavez because the Holocaust lie always keeps the Jews as the good and persecuted. Antisemitism is not loved in the world but everybody knows. Putin knows, Kim-Jong knows, China knows, Arabia knows.
A better question is what is the song used in the opening under the footage from Alexander Nevsky (that old ass movie)? But don't cheat and look at the video description.
Anyway, yes, the a large portion of Africa's population did die due to the slave trade. Its not unreasonable when you understand the depths slavers had to sink to in order to acquire (which was difficult) and safely transport (even more difficult) their human cargo, coupled with the inhuman treatment dispensed upon slaves by their unscrupulous masters, the idea that the American holocaust took a huge chunk of Africa's people's lives is not so distant a possibility!
Slavery has existed since time began. How many people have been killed in slavery's name over the span of time? How many races of people were completely wiped off the face of the earth? Isn't Sparta and the Persian Empire far bigger criminals for enslaving half of humanity during the earliest periods of human hisory?
I would agree if Sparta or Persia had killed nearly as many people - but that aside, neither claimed to be a free, equal, democratic nation, and had little opportunity to offer reparations to the people it enslaved (as they both collapsed miserably.) Perhaps on top of that was America's acceptance of slavery after the abolition of Feudalism, or in other words, long after it was a historically necessary system (whereas, Persia and Sparta were in just the right timeframe for their practices.)
Sparta and Persia wipped out entire civilizations. Those they didn't they enslaved. Consider propotion and human scale - there were siginficantly less people on earth during that time period then there is now. Historically Necessary System, so you don't condone slavery as a whole?
Comrade - you site speculation of speculators... these peoples give estimate very big to sell even bigger numbers in books. Stalin was monster, kill many families for no reason except for power. He took to much from Mother Russia. What doing this with Africa?
So, people who right about SLAVERY are all biased speculators, but the people who right about STALIN are not? People who right about SLAVERY are trying to make money, but people who right about STALIN are honest altruists? I sense a very thick double standard! There are people who believe Stalin only killed 1.3 million (which utilizes all documented evidence of Stalin's crimes.) Using slavery's most possible conservative estimate - 10 million - America STILL comes out on top.
Sure. Milton Meltzer in his, "Slavery: A World History" puts the figure at 8 million killed during storage and transportation. Supplemented by David Stannard's "American Holocaust" which reviews information pertaining to deaths in slave acquisition, which are estimated to be roughly the same as the number actually enslaved in America, putting the number around 16-20 million.
Stalin was an evil man. spin a video for entertainment ,,,Stalin was a deadly dictator killing more of his people than the Nazis did during WWII. I don't see this as good...I mean a *good* video...maybe entertaining and historical archival footage and people worshipping him because in Russia if you spoke out against anything you were thrown in jail and or killed. I have worked with Russians and have many Russians...they are an opresed society with no freedom or choice to do a damn thing.
This video is the best arguement for Stalin I've ever seen! Keep up the good work!
We have 4 million people in our prisons. Not even Stalin was THAT big of a douche. And hey, their prisoners were much more racially proportional, too!
How many prisoners are in Guantanamo or Iraq prisons? A few thousand.I believe perhaps you should be humane before you can infect anyone else with your ignorance.Stalin killed many tens of millions.
America has killed more than Stalin could even dream of. 20 million Native Americans before colonists came, 40 million Africans killed as they were hunted Africa, dumped in the ocean in unsafe slave vessels, and beaten, hung, and lynched on this soil... We sat by and let the Jews die until Hitler's Japanese cronies got up the gumption to launch an attack. America is the world's most savage and genocidal state, and you have the gaul to judge ANY other nation as worse by America's bloody record?
HaVe YoU FoRgOt ThE PrOgRamS??? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Russian: "Протоколы сионских мудрецов", A DiRtY PeiCe of AnTi-SeMeDic RuSsIan ProPaGAndA sTiLL rEprInTeD ToDAy In aLmOST EvErY LanGanGE. ReAd a HIsToRy BoOk. YoUR FaCtS aRe GrOsSlY InAcUraTe.
WhAt DiFfEreEncE doEs ThAt MaKe? RuSsiAnS StILL WrOtE iT RiGhT??? YoUr MaKiNg VaSt SwEePiNg GeNerlizAtiOns. Go tO CoLLegE. YouR ArGuMenTs aRe PaTheTiC, LikE YouR ViDeOS. Go "lIbeRaTe" anOthEr FaRmHoUse
lol, now you're just being prejudiced towards all Russians regardless of their political views. Stalin (contrasting from his otherwise overflowing evil and stupidity) outlawed Anti-Semitism and banned the Protocols of Zion.
Go to college, you say? I'm lecturing on a panel of speakers at Drexel University next week. I DO go to college - to give speeches!
As for the farmhouse video, it was just a spot of fun in an attempt to compile our gunplay in to a video... We weren't serious.
OMG - YoUr ReTArDeD! YoU DoN'T LeCtuRe AnYWhErE! YoU HAvEn'T a CluE wHaT YoUR TaLkINg AbOuT... StAliN HATED JeWs, eVeN ThOUgh His ProPagAndA woUld Say OtherWise -- iTs WeLL KnoWn. Do ThE ReSeArCh.
Yeah, the well known facts, like how the Protocols are the fault of Communism, right? That's about as factual as the opposite belief - that Communism is a Jewish conspiracy! Although I'd agree that Stalin was very probably anti-Semitic.
And yes, I do lecture at universities; I'll be sure to post the video after my next opportunity next weekend.
why not go fuck yourself stalinist fuck! in your head there is but nothing which work. you professor in university? how are you called??? as said in the english you are but "full of shit"
And you want to know the real bitch, bro? I hate Stalin, and am fervently anti-Soviet style Socialism. But by no means can anyone with an understanding of history defend America, or seek to join in the already clamorous attacks on Stalin's Soviet Union as if is *even comparable* to America's vicious past.
If that's the best you can do, if that's the extent of your historical understanding, if that's the limit to your ability to retort - you've won my arguement for me.
That's the problem with pseud-communists -- they argue for the sake of argument regardless of how grossly inaccurate their claims are and when you point this out to them, they somehow declare victory. It's like arguing with a small child. Did you see his video of him and his pals playing revolutionaries as they "liberated" a farm house. So gay.
Your homophobic fear of sexual inadequacy aside, the point being made is that Stalin's crimes are uncomparable to America's. If you're going to make movies criticizing horror and slaughter, you should be focusing on the real criminal, instead of dividing people's attention among lesser thugs.
Your kind of confussing the issues and trying to draw some kind of cross comparitive analisis in the process. What does that have to do with Stalinism and the Cult of Personality? The point of this video is to humorously make fun of Stalin's portrail of himself as some kind of benevolent father figure and victor of the Great Patriotic War when he was anything but. Stalin was a monster, out done only by hitler. Who are these "real" criminals I'm somehow protecting with my propaganda???
I wasn't directing that criticism about movie making at you so much as these people who complain about the USSR (and, for that matter, Nazi Germany) while neglecting to even mention the nations that have killed far more than either of those terrible dictatorships combined; particularly the United States. By creating a clamour around Soviet atrocities, people forget that America killed 40 million slaves (and never paid the survivors any reparations.)
"Black & White" (1933) is a wonderful short soviet propaganda piece which better encapulates your point, though I find it difficult to believe that 40 million slaves were killed when only about 5 million slaves existed in the US by 1870 after emancipation. Ironic, wouldn't you say that you unknowningly spread soviet propaganda because you are a true believer. Thank you for your comments and validation.
"To kill 1 man -- that's a tragity. To kill 1million -- that's a statistic!!!" -Stalin
40 million is inclusive not just of slaves murdered in America due to slavery on our soil, but of all of the African slaves dumped in the ocean on unsafe slave boats, all of the Africans hunted down and murdered in their homelands. 40 million is what white people acknowledge - its the conservative figure. The figure is estimated to be between 60-100 million dead as a result of the world slave trade.
This has nothing to do with Soviet propaganda - but what American historians admit!
Howard Zinn, coming from a moderate estimation, puts it in his "A People's History of the United States," : "It is roughly estimated that Africa lost 50 million human beings to death and slavery in those centuries we call the beginnings of modern Western civilization[.]"
Continued again: Organizations such as the New Black Panther Party, the Black Hebrew Israelites, the Nation of Islam, the African People's Socialist Party, the International Democratic Uhuru Movement, and the Poor Righteous Party of the Black Nation (to name a few) estimate 100 million and higher.
If the numbers are equal to the total number of people the Soviets killed, this merely goes to show America is no better. But lest we forget, Africans were only ONE PART of America's victims!
So you've never read any scholarly information, just propaganda prepared by extremist groups and whatever you can find in B&N... this is what makes up your informed opinion?
I'm citing the first American historians, who are all moderate (and some even right-wing) and place the figure between 20-40 million. I didn't blindly accept anything except the general consensus among people who have researched those events.
And indeed, there are many radical pro-black parties and organizations across the world who place those estimates far higher - whether that's based on conclusive evidence or not is a greater question, one which I haven't the ability to answer, which is why I rest at the conservative 20-40 million figures - which are bad enough as they stand.
By your figures, that means every slave ship or slave capture resulted in at least a 90% casualty rate. 500 Slaves per ship - 50 survive to be sold? Slaves were treated like cattle by American Law -- you can't make money if 90% of your stock dies enroute. In reality up to a third died in passage. Roughly - if 5 million Africans are in the US by 1870, lets say that that's 2/3rds of a whole that survived passage, how many died in passage?
One of the reasons slavery was a very profitable business because the Dutch slavers were in cahoots with the more powerful African Tribesman who helped captured and sold off rival tribes. The easier they were to capture, the more slave survive passage, the more money one stands to profit.
Again, passage was extremely dangerous. But on top of that, the highly exaggerated claims that African tribesman gave up most of the men who would be slaves are rooted in a small number of examples. Most African tribes resisted and fought - resulting in a mostly dead tribe and a few isolated captured individuals who were then given to slavery. Profit was certainly the goal, but it was not that easy to acquire.
Dude - this guy is a fucking dolt. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He just argues without reason. Did you check his videos? There is one of him playing revolutionaries with his friends....
Its actually true that the majority of slaves died at sea. Indeed, you can't make money if your slaves die - which is why the cost of slaves was high enough to pay for the ship and crew who - if they died at sea - were no loss to you. The thought process was, "there's enough negroes in Africa to make up for it." Saying only a third died in passage would make for quite an engineering feat for the vessels employed for this practice in that time - which were often light transport boats.
you draw conjecture basised on your own observation regardless of how skewed or warped your perseption is. You don't adhear to reason. If you take a 90% lose in anything, how do you make enough money to operate, let alone turn a profit. Your a becon for communist propaganda
Its a simple equasion based on common sense. Slavery was profitable because they were in high demand in the Americas - a place that badly needed manual labor to continue expanding production. Who cares about risking your few white slaver employees when its all profit if even a handful survive to come back?
The Cuban Revolution has done a great deal to lift many people out of desperate situations where Imperial powers don't find it profitable to proceed. Recently, a doctor from the Gambia spoke here in my city about Cuba's generous medical assistance. They trained many medical professionals, and in the meantime cut the rate of malaria cases from some 300,000 to 100,000. But the Cuban revolution goes through time, inspiring many revolutionaries - and setting an example for how Socialism can work.
...dude, malaria doesn't exist here because America isn't a tropical climate. And at any rate, the Gambia is a Capitalist nation - just one of the exploitED rather than exploitING. Cuba is a tropical Socialist nation, and it doesn't have a malaria problem - due partly to a very advanced healthcare system.
at any rate your wrong, Malaria was Eradicated in the United States by 1951 - you actually don't know a thing about what your talking about. You read one book then make the rest up as you go along. Please, go stick your head back into the sand.
See, you're just being an asshole about this for no reason. I did look at the CDC website and I cede that indeed, it did exist here - albeit to a very small degree which was easily fixable, and even then only in the sub-tropical southeast (like Louisiana, Florida, et al.) I had thought, based on its present day sites of incidence, that it was a tropical disease. And I'm not really wrong; I simply wasn't aware it was ever a problem here, minor or otherwise.
"Malaria or a disease resembling malaria has been noted for more than 4,000 years. From the Italian for "bad air," mal'aria has probably influenced to a great extent human populations and human history."
"CDC's origins are closely linked to malaria control activities in the US. On July 1 1946 in Atlanta, the Communicable Disease Center was created as a new component of the US Public Health Service."
Malaria is not a tropical disease, you are wrong. you don't read, and you will never learn anything because you can never be wrong, that's your problem. look at the map of Distribution of malaria in the United States, 1882-1935. in 1882 it was in almost 30 states, even the ones by canada which is NOT the sub tropics.
If there is swamp, there is malaria. Malaria only exists in the third world (south america, south east asia and africa) not beecause its a tropical disease but because its the only place it hasn't been eradicated yet. Its pointless to argue with someone who can't even get their facts straight.
Even in the Russia there is this problem in the small bug like flea with wing. But Russia 76 in 80 in world with problem. Very small problem, but world warming make bigger.
You know, I already agreed I was mistaken. I don't see why you have to drive it on. "[Malaria] is widespread in tropical and subtropical regions, including parts of the Americas, Asia, and Africa." Can't you see how one might deduce malaria is a tropical disease from that paragraph? Instead, that's simply where it spreads quickly (due to higher mosquito and similar insect species which spread it, in particular) And if you look at a map of distribution, youll see that it is only strong in tropics
Second article down: History: Eradication of Malaria in the United States (1947-1951 ...
See, this is what you do: you wikipedia something (which is NOT a credible source of information), misinterpret the first few sentances, then formulate an argument, not based on well researched fact, but your own skewed observation. It's called free-based assosiation because you'd have to be on crack in order to think that way. You are a fool. Read a book and stop using wikipedia.
Yeah - based on its present day sites of incidence - that's your problem, you don't actually do research, you draw conclutions on baseless observation regardless of fact. your a fucking moron
Majo - I got this... Man you are dense. There is no way you go to college - no college educated person would make baseless claims even when research is spoonfed. You've ignored not only my points but everyone elses. And there is no way you looked at the CDC website and came up with that conclution. And you mean "ect." not "et al." your not listing defendants or authors, et alia (and others) can refer only to persons, not things. You're so ignorant its fustrating. Seriously stop talking.
There's mountains of evidence for the subject; I've ignored no one's points, and addressed every fallacious arguement you guys have presented in the defense of slavery's human cost!
And I absolutely looked at the CDC website... Read on further in the posts, or look at the site yourself. I'll QUOTE from that site: "Rainfall can create collections of water ('breeding sites') where Anopheles eggs are deposited, and larvae and pupae develop into adulthood, a process that takes approximately 9-12 days in tropical areas. Such breeding sites may dry up prematurely in the absence of further rainfall, or conversely they can be flushed and destroyed by excessive rains."
Then you would have seen the map of Distribution of malaria in the United States, 1882-1935 and noticed that cases of malaria were as far north as Canada which would make it not a tropical disease.... your a fool.
And FINALLY, the Latin "et al" (which you clearly only know about because you googled it once) means "and others" as proper nouns, which would INCLUDE not only people's names but entities such as a particular location, nation, organization, or corporation; the first category to which Florida and Louisiana would belong.
I don't know why you try to attack Latin as if its relevent, however. If you have such great evidence to prove that slavery was a deathless phenomenon, I'd like to see it.
idiot - no one said slavery was a deathless phenomenon. The argument is American Slavery did not cause the death of 100 million people. or 50 million. or 40 million. Yes people died and its a tragity, but your numbers are ASTRONOMICALLY inaccuate. in 1945 six million jews were killed, do you understand how difficult a feat that was to accompish at that time? An no, if you are listing states, unless its a court case, ect is what is used, not et al: Winston, et al vs. The State of Vigina, et al
The population of africa in 1950 was about 222 million people. Basically what you are saying is that by 1870 the United States alone killed about half the population of an entire contentent, when the slave trade in africa was a world wide phenomenon, whose participents included most of europe and were engaging in the slave trade centuries before America was even an independent nation. You're an idiot and you need to read a history text book and get your facts straight.
As majo tried to explain, your point which is America mass murdered 100s of millions of Africans in genocide is a bit of Soviet Distortion. Yes people died, yes it was a tragity, yes we all wish it never happened, but it did not happen at the massive scale at which you present, nor without the cooperation of rival African tribes. Most slaves died not in the capture, but during the transporation, basically a third of every ship.
5 million free Africans by 1870 (13% of the US total Population) - say they are all survivors, i'll give you the benifit of the doubt, if 50 million die, that means 90% of the slaves die in transit. In other words, the US killed more then the total population of the US at the time. The Nazi's pioneered a death industry to kill 6 million jews, which was unthinkable at the time, and you mean to tell me that in 1870 more then ten times the amount of people were killed?
SIX MILLION PEOPLE. Do you know how hard it is to kill six million people. Do you understand the lengths at which this feat was undertaken. Before Aschwitz and the death camps the Nazi's couldn't kill the Jews fast enough, they weren't even making a scratch in the Jewish population. Before 1945 a nation mass-murdering six million people was inconsevable. The Black Death, which killed a third of Europe (25-50 million people) was seen as a punishment from God, something man couldn't possible do.
Pol Pot was only able to kill about 2 million of his own people by 1998. Stalin on the otherhand between massive starvation, purges, political exicutions, through the Gulag slavery system, the exicution of returning POWs, ect, killed millions and millions of his own people, so large that it remains a heated debate till this day but is about 20 million.
There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough without you pulling numbers out of thin air" school.
Your evidence is congecture, your argument is sloppy, your points unfounded and your facts are non-existant. You regurgitate inaccurices and distortions without doing any of your own reseach or at least checking the sources taking them at face value as gossple. You should be ashamed of yourself. I am for actually tring to educate you. Please, go back to your dilussions and stop ruining peoples enjoyment.
Stalinism has nothing to do with Communism, as a note. There is certainly exaggeration - for both the death toll under Stalin and for the slave trade. But no one can deny that both were at *best* equally as slaughterous. This is why Stalinism and Capitalism are equally as horrible for the world - and both should be abolished in the march of history.
Of course 6 million people were hard to kill - but Hitler managed to do it in about a decade! Pol Pot had much less than that, and a smaller population base to deal with. The Stalin figure of 20 million is certainly an impossibility; half of that would be possible, but a quarter of that is more likely. But even if we take your liberal estimate of 20 million for Stalin and the conservative estimate for America, double standards aside, they are equally as murderous states.
90% would be high mortality. And although mortality was high, again, I'd avoid the 50 million figure in favor of the conservative 20 estimates, which would make mortality a much more reasonable 50%.
I don't contend - for there is no way to know for sure - that 100s of millions died. But there is ample evidence to suggest upwards of 20 million; which would be more than the Nazis killed, by far. To claim it is all Soviet distortion is quite the conspiracy theory. I never read any Soviet work on the subject, and I doubt every American historian is under the influence of any select Soviet array of works.
This entire paragraph is unproductive and needlessly insulting. Frankly, I find no enjoyment in lowering myself to your level. If you want to discuss facts, why must you continuously drag all of us in to the muddy arena of insults? Is it perhaps because you find no logical way to debate without diverting the conversation away from reality and in to the recesses of your childish reaction to your sense of dominance being threatened? If I were you, I'd ponder this before you open your mouth again.
I disagree through the passages of history Stalin and communism and capitalism go hand and hand with his ideals and murderous actions against anyone who did not conform it is a ploy to keep the people in chains you want to be a comrade fool you
Allow me to reiterate: Stalinism was indeed quite evil and resulted in millions of deaths; just like Capitalism. But Stalinism does not equal Communism, and this is why I am most definitely a Communist; both Anti-Stalinist and Anti-Capitalist.
Lets agree: Most Slaves Died at sea. Lets say 50 million died. In 1870 there were 5 million Africans representing 13% of the population of the US. For argument sake, lets say these 5 million were the survivers. Remember that these boats have to cross the atlantic and hold about 500 people. if 5 out of 50 million survive, that means 90% died at sea, meaning only 50 slaves made it to the mainland per boat. Slavery was a very profitable business, how can you make money if you lose 90 of your stock?
I know, you just get more africans, but that costs money. How much did it cost to run a slaving operation? How much was the average slave bought for? How much would that be in todays money? I think if you examined this from an economic/monetary perspective you'd find your numbers are laughable. No business can operate at a 90% material loss. I milk 100 gallons of milk but lose 90 going to the market. I sell 10 gallons of milk. indulge me - how much do I charge for each gallon?
The answer is not enough to pay for the upkeep of my cows, milking them, bottling the milk, shipping costs, taxes, then selling those ten gallons of milk to a store so they can turn around and sell them for a profit. No one is going to buy a $1000 gallon of milk. Sure my example is stupid but so is your argument. When you have the operational costs of a slave operation, the average price of a slave and what that translates in todays dollars, maybe we can examin this further. Till then...
Excellent point morgan! You defeated his nonsense using economics! I would add that by 1857 there we about 23 million private serfs (slaves) in Russia. By comparison, the United States had approximately 4 million slaves by 1860. The bottom line really is one thing has nothing to do with the other, regardless of whatever baseless estimate you create. You can't really compaire what Stalin did to anything else in history. Its a truly unique occurance
Also, slavery existed in Russia since the 11th century - in America only 200 years, less then any other developed nation.
Look, the point your pushing is propaganda created by the Soviet Minisitry as a way to create dissidence. Its very funny that you fight for it so feavorishly. All those book you've read all get their numbers from the same place, a soviet black propaganda campain. Try reading some scholarly works. Check the sources of the books you've read. You will find you are misinformed
Almost all of those serfs were native Russians - they were not imported. As a result, they had an (unsurprisingly) low casualty rate in the acquisition of their neo-chattel. Its not comparable, because it involved no holocaust.
And to claim that the American slave holocaust is a "Soviet invention" is the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. I can't fathom the thought processes of a person who denies slavery was horrifically genocidal for African people.
SCALE - The scale at which it was conducted. You don't listen. You haven't listened. You'll never listen. So many people have tried to explain this to you. The invention is the scale at which is occured, the exageration, not that Africans did not die. Slavery is forcing people into bondage, Genocide is the systematic irratication people. What the Nazis did to the Jew is Genocide. Americans to Africans, that's slavery not a holocaust. The propaganda is in the semantics.
RESULT - The result of the enslavement of Africans is what I am discussing, just as you argue about the result of Stalinism. Both had non-genocidal intentions, both resulted in basically that.
By engaging in a *systematic* enslavement of a particular kind of people which has, as an impossible escapable result, an extremely high casualty rate for that people, you are knowingly and intentionally engaging in the equivalent to an eradication of a large portion of those people. THAT is a holocaust
again, your assuming 100 million people were killed or 40 million were killed. Your pulling numbers from thin air. They are astronmical. People who estimate stalin killed 100 million people scholars don't take seriously, but they sell a lot of books at your B&N. Read morgan's milk analogy, she makes a lot of sense when you think about it. How would this high slave price effect the price of cotton? The lower the cost of production, the more profits right? Your numbers don't add up.
You're not countering anything, bro. All your doing is defending slavery by arguing that either: A.) "Not that many people died" or B.) "America didn't WANT to kill them." But the reality is, they DID want to enslave them, and the KNEW that meant the majority of kidnapped Africans would die. In your logic, its okay for Stalin to sign death warrants if all he INTENDED to do was sign papers, whether or not that led to someone dying because of it. Do you understand what I'm explaining to you?
boo! hoo! I love stalin and russia! it's not fair that my great leader is tarnished! so many other bad things happened in the world! boo hoo! The soviet union fell, remember?
every so often another nucklehead like you comes storming around my video with their words and redoric arguing away at irrelivent shit about US foreign policy or slavery or about the war in iraq. Please understand that this is a work of comedy for people with an understanding of Russian history and who have studies Russian propaganda, hence "only built for Soviet Links"
I never said your video was bad. In fact, I like it a lot. Its very humorous, much as my own DPRK videos (come on, James Brown and North Korea were never combined so well before...) Either way, I favorited this shit... lol
lol, see, this is your mistake. You think I support the USSR and/or Stalin. I do not. I just disagree that Stalin was the worst thing to happen in the world. Capitalism, and the carry-over slavery that it exploited for profit for so long, has left a much worse mark in the world. While criticism of Stalin is great and progressive, it is a misdirected focus. Stalin's not around anymore, nor is the USSR. But Capitalism, in all its infamy, is.
See, now you're just being rude. I live in the US, but I have many friends and acquaintences who have been to, lived in, and live in Cuba (which is the only nation I think can be called Socialist, now and so far.) As for my familial relations, I love both my mother and father, thank you. I hate the economic system that forced all of my friends and family back in my hometown in to poverty, and that has done the most evil things in documented history to untold numbers of innocent human beings.
But you have never lived in a communist country for any length of time. You've sat in the good old US of A, free to read your books produced for no other reason the capitalism, freely engaging in capitalism
Was there a "Final Solution" in this American Slave Holocaust? Was there a meeting to determen how the United States would systematically kill every African in Africa in an effort to purge them from the planet, ie conduct genocide or a Holocaust? I thought Slavery was an evil practive half the country used to harvest raw materials to maximize profits, a practice that nearly tore our country apart. How about all the union troops who died in the civil war. Why not add them to your estimate too?
The union troops fought to end slavery, and I would certainly agree that its slavery's fault that they died. But I think its much more relevent to focus on the people who were abducted from their homelands, only to die at sea or be tortured in the world's first constitutional "democracy." No, there was no conspiracy to kill Africans, but there was a conspiracy to abduct and enslave them - which CONSCIOUSLY resulted in their mass deaths.
You realize your projecting 40 million people killed by 1870 would be like the US killing about 20% of the total population of Africa in 1950. Your numbers are astronomical and I can't imagine what scholarly source you took them from.
Good video! Can you make the same about Bush and Irac people. Before bombing life and after - you can name it price of democtracy and at the end ? You can mixed it with sausage delusion of Bush.
And you can make the clip about Klinton and Kosovo - life before atack and after and mix it with Monicka pasion - oh babe, oh babe...
Same action - the meaning the same - polititions are all m.. f.. and don't care about people they care about there sausage! :)
never has been a communist country or for that matter a democratic country. years from now i'm sure there will be videos of smiling american leaders spreading their love and democracy all over the world.
fascism is capitalism in decay.
jackchorn 11 months ago
@jackchorn
That "paragraph" is writing in decay.
martiallaw201 1 month ago
I don't get it....What's this about?
cutechong 1 year ago
*****
NeroroPuj 3 years ago
Stalin wasn't comunist, was a killer.
jorelec 3 years ago
there the same thing
tubub 3 years ago
So you posted the redacted photo of Yezhov, who Stalin had shot, like it's a bad thing, yet you post countless more photos of the people Yezhov had killed, despite Stalin's orders against such things. Nice job being a troll.
p1nkfl0yd 3 years ago
@p1nkfl0yd Have you lived in communism mr communist?
Twycross 1 year ago
100000000! muito bom
cabum1234 3 years ago
OMG
Staline a zionist ? open an history book dammed nazi.
I don't know what is the worse, the nazis or the communist ? but you are very stupid anyways ^^
Sagem47 3 years ago
to be honest stalin looks kinda nice :p like a granpa xD But i know he killed thousand of people and that he is a criminal
Nunatag1 3 years ago
stalin=unpunished criminal
eulex10 3 years ago
nice film, made me chuckle.
WISNMK 3 years ago
ZAJEBISTY FILMIK :)
smugler13 3 years ago
*** "Fucking Brilliant Film" ***
Thanks man! Glad you Enjoyed it!
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
"The cult of personality" is a bullshit wich was proclaim by western media. in fact there can not be cult with out strong personality.
MrMatSanders 3 years ago
Stalin the Jew son of a bitch. Murderer, Bank robber, terrorist. War crimes, holodomor, atheism. he sacrified his own son and shot his own wife. what a sick bastard.
Mustafaoeztuerk 3 years ago
Obviously you dont know shit about the story why he sacrificed his son,he said: we never change a general for an officer.
luka55555 3 years ago
But sacrificing his own son shows how crank he was.
Mustafaoeztuerk 3 years ago
It's just glorifies his commitment to his country. His son was a Nazi collaborator and sacrificing him demonstrates how he would not let any traitor go unpunished... even his own son.
Scientisticsoviet 3 years ago
His son was no collaborateur. He only should be changed against Paulus. All these traitors who wanted food and believed in orthodox church. And these traitors who were catched by the Wehrmacht after they fought 3 years in the dirt. But the worst are these traitors who critizated his politics of Imperialism, Gulag culture and war.
For luck all these traitors got killed.
Mustafaoeztuerk 3 years ago
I'm having difficulty understanding you Mustafaoeztuerk.
Scientisticsoviet 3 years ago
His son was no collaborateur. He was captured and should be changed against general paulus who was captured by soviets.
In the eyes of Stalin everybody was a traitor. He let kill more than 15 Million people, priests, children, women, people who critizated him or protestet. He let kill ten-thousands of soviet soldiers who were in german concentration camps. He sacrified 14 Million soldiers only to conquer East-Germany, Poland and cecheslovakia. The soviet Union was real horror.
Mustafaoeztuerk 3 years ago
out of all the things you could have criticized stalin for, you mention his refusal to exchange his son for one of Hitler's highest ranking generals, as if that was a character flaw. if anything it shows Stalin's resolve to win the war and makes him look more patriotic
historywillabsolve 3 years ago
Wait 'til you get the "Stalin was a Jew" argument. Most Jews don't study to become Georgian Orthodox priests. The anti-Stalinists either use Conquest, which is crazy shit, or these anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, which are far crazier. You should check out the Ted Pike "documentaries" on youtube. They are so anti-Jewish, but they criticize anti-semitism in a few sections. Like, "The Nazis shouldn't have killed the Jews. They should've waited for God to do it"!
westphalianprinz 3 years ago
Torquemada was a Jew ,too. The jewish ghost is the destruction of morality. They do everything to get more influence. Furing inquisition thousands of jews converted they tricked the christians after 200 years they converted back . Same was in prussia when friedrich allowed jews to become ministers. The only condition was they should convert. These Jews convert to trick the people. Bush is a jew , too. search here on youtube for "bush is jew". There are pics were he is with a talmud in his hand.
Mustafaoeztuerk 3 years ago
I bet you believe Osama is a Jew, too, right?
BTW, the Jews in Prussia were not persecuted, why do you think Karl Marx's father converted to the Lutheran state church of Prussia?
westphalianprinz 3 years ago
you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories, and seem to think the Jews run the world, i think it's you who's "crank"
historywillabsolve 3 years ago 2
Stalin was not patriotic he was a typical crypto Jew that runs the world. They want to create a One-World and and multicultural slaves under the controll of Jews like its said in the thora and Talmud. Take his name djugaschvily. djuga = jew, vily = son. He three times was married with jewish girl.
9/11 was a conspiracy. Its a fact.Done by Mr. Bush a crypto judeoChristian. His grandfather is jew. He celebrates chanukka and reads the Talmud.Your Mr.Chavez and Mr. Ahmedinedschad know that ,too.
Mustafaoeztuerk 3 years ago
lol...wow. uhm, no comment. it's obvious you're a nutjob.
historywillabsolve 3 years ago
search on youtube for George Bush jew.
In Iran Chavez said:" The same people who crucified Jesus controll the world." I think he didnt mean the Romans.
Mustafaoeztuerk 3 years ago
Chavez didn't exactly say that. He clarified that statement, and he made it clear he didn't mean the Jews. He meant the imperialists. The Iranian president denies the Holocaust but he's not even an anti-Semite/Anti-Jewish person. Israel is what you're pissed off about. It pisses me off, too. However, I know Jews who hate Israel. Jewish people may have become part of the ruling class, but they are not THE ruling class entirely.
westphalianprinz 3 years ago
Chavez knows but when he says he knows he get bombed.
Ahmedinedschad has a big Army Venezuela didnt has. He is not in the positon to speak that out. And most of the people wouldnt understand Chavez because the Holocaust lie always keeps the Jews as the good and persecuted. Antisemitism is not loved in the world but everybody knows. Putin knows, Kim-Jong knows, China knows, Arabia knows.
Mustafaoeztuerk 3 years ago
Chavez isn't an idiot, unlike Goatfuckerijad.
westphalianprinz 3 years ago
lol greetings from Mexico City!
Baraquiel62 3 years ago
Shame on this bastard of Staline, and all the Dictators...
Sagem47 3 years ago
stalin showed how 1 man could run terrorize a whole country into the ground. Americans should open their eyes
PriaNorm 3 years ago
Comrade stalin, the greatest communist ever.
iranjavid 3 years ago
Love the Beginin'
BarnicleBill2017 3 years ago
WHeN And WhAt WiLL Be tHe ToPiC FoR ThE NeXt VidEo?
RandomStuffEmporium 3 years ago
KeEp IT RaNdOm!!! FoR ThE BeSt At RanDom, ChEck OuT RaNdOmStUfFEmoRiUm.
FoR ThOSe WhO LiKe StuFF At RaNdOm
RandomStuffEmporium 3 years ago
******
Best Movie Ever
****
blackbeard233 3 years ago
Someone randomly sent this to me - That was tight - where the hell did you get all that footage from???
FACEkickKILLA 3 years ago
Mad props. What is that old ass movie in the begining?
IdriveaLEXUS444 3 years ago
A better question is what is the song used in the opening under the footage from Alexander Nevsky (that old ass movie)? But don't cheat and look at the video description.
IronFist75 3 years ago
Anyway, yes, the a large portion of Africa's population did die due to the slave trade. Its not unreasonable when you understand the depths slavers had to sink to in order to acquire (which was difficult) and safely transport (even more difficult) their human cargo, coupled with the inhuman treatment dispensed upon slaves by their unscrupulous masters, the idea that the American holocaust took a huge chunk of Africa's people's lives is not so distant a possibility!
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Slavery has existed since time began. How many people have been killed in slavery's name over the span of time? How many races of people were completely wiped off the face of the earth? Isn't Sparta and the Persian Empire far bigger criminals for enslaving half of humanity during the earliest periods of human hisory?
IronFist75 3 years ago
I would agree if Sparta or Persia had killed nearly as many people - but that aside, neither claimed to be a free, equal, democratic nation, and had little opportunity to offer reparations to the people it enslaved (as they both collapsed miserably.) Perhaps on top of that was America's acceptance of slavery after the abolition of Feudalism, or in other words, long after it was a historically necessary system (whereas, Persia and Sparta were in just the right timeframe for their practices.)
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Sparta and Persia wipped out entire civilizations. Those they didn't they enslaved. Consider propotion and human scale - there were siginficantly less people on earth during that time period then there is now. Historically Necessary System, so you don't condone slavery as a whole?
morgandrama 3 years ago
Comrade - you site speculation of speculators... these peoples give estimate very big to sell even bigger numbers in books. Stalin was monster, kill many families for no reason except for power. He took to much from Mother Russia. What doing this with Africa?
SovietSuka 3 years ago
So, people who right about SLAVERY are all biased speculators, but the people who right about STALIN are not? People who right about SLAVERY are trying to make money, but people who right about STALIN are honest altruists? I sense a very thick double standard! There are people who believe Stalin only killed 1.3 million (which utilizes all documented evidence of Stalin's crimes.) Using slavery's most possible conservative estimate - 10 million - America STILL comes out on top.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Sure. Milton Meltzer in his, "Slavery: A World History" puts the figure at 8 million killed during storage and transportation. Supplemented by David Stannard's "American Holocaust" which reviews information pertaining to deaths in slave acquisition, which are estimated to be roughly the same as the number actually enslaved in America, putting the number around 16-20 million.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Joseph Stalin rocks (kool vid)
UFOzone 3 years ago
сука крестоносцы
wolganin 3 years ago
What's sad is that I could name tons of modern cults of personality.
Bush,Chavez,Jong Ill,Ademajhad and much more.
Boatdoctor13 3 years ago
Boatdoctor13:
Maybe, but you don't get shot, or get sent to labour camp for life time for making fun of Bush?
Heikii 3 years ago
No but you do with Jong Ill and Ademajhad. Bush would love it though. He's a fundamentalist Christian dickhead.
Boatdoctor13 3 years ago
yea, I know about Jong Il, at least, I didn't know Iran had labour camps though.
North Korea is the closest you come to "Stalinism" today I guess.
I don't like Bush either.
Heikii 3 years ago
Stalin was an evil man. spin a video for entertainment ,,,Stalin was a deadly dictator killing more of his people than the Nazis did during WWII. I don't see this as good...I mean a *good* video...maybe entertaining and historical archival footage and people worshipping him because in Russia if you spoke out against anything you were thrown in jail and or killed. I have worked with Russians and have many Russians...they are an opresed society with no freedom or choice to do a damn thing.
happycat4200 3 years ago
This video is the best arguement for Stalin I've ever seen! Keep up the good work!
We have 4 million people in our prisons. Not even Stalin was THAT big of a douche. And hey, their prisoners were much more racially proportional, too!
ComradeMartin 3 years ago 2
No,Stalin just had them shot in the head.
jetroavery08 3 years ago
How humane of him! We torture people in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. :(
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
How many prisoners are in Guantanamo or Iraq prisons? A few thousand.I believe perhaps you should be humane before you can infect anyone else with your ignorance.Stalin killed many tens of millions.
jetroavery08 3 years ago
America has killed more than Stalin could even dream of. 20 million Native Americans before colonists came, 40 million Africans killed as they were hunted Africa, dumped in the ocean in unsafe slave vessels, and beaten, hung, and lynched on this soil... We sat by and let the Jews die until Hitler's Japanese cronies got up the gumption to launch an attack. America is the world's most savage and genocidal state, and you have the gaul to judge ANY other nation as worse by America's bloody record?
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
HaVe YoU FoRgOt ThE PrOgRamS??? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Russian: "Протоколы сионских мудрецов", A DiRtY PeiCe of AnTi-SeMeDic RuSsIan ProPaGAndA sTiLL rEprInTeD ToDAy In aLmOST EvErY LanGanGE. ReAd a HIsToRy BoOk. YoUR FaCtS aRe GrOsSlY InAcUraTe.
RandomStuffEmporium 3 years ago
lol, you do realize that the Protocols were written under the Czar, right? Someone here DOES need to read a history book, but its not me.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
WhAt DiFfEreEncE doEs ThAt MaKe? RuSsiAnS StILL WrOtE iT RiGhT??? YoUr MaKiNg VaSt SwEePiNg GeNerlizAtiOns. Go tO CoLLegE. YouR ArGuMenTs aRe PaTheTiC, LikE YouR ViDeOS. Go "lIbeRaTe" anOthEr FaRmHoUse
RandomStuffEmporium 3 years ago
lol, now you're just being prejudiced towards all Russians regardless of their political views. Stalin (contrasting from his otherwise overflowing evil and stupidity) outlawed Anti-Semitism and banned the Protocols of Zion.
Go to college, you say? I'm lecturing on a panel of speakers at Drexel University next week. I DO go to college - to give speeches!
As for the farmhouse video, it was just a spot of fun in an attempt to compile our gunplay in to a video... We weren't serious.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
That said, WhY dOn'T yOu gO fUcK yOuRsElF? :)
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
OMG - YoUr ReTArDeD! YoU DoN'T LeCtuRe AnYWhErE! YoU HAvEn'T a CluE wHaT YoUR TaLkINg AbOuT... StAliN HATED JeWs, eVeN ThOUgh His ProPagAndA woUld Say OtherWise -- iTs WeLL KnoWn. Do ThE ReSeArCh.
RandomStuffEmporium 3 years ago
Yeah, the well known facts, like how the Protocols are the fault of Communism, right? That's about as factual as the opposite belief - that Communism is a Jewish conspiracy! Although I'd agree that Stalin was very probably anti-Semitic.
And yes, I do lecture at universities; I'll be sure to post the video after my next opportunity next weekend.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
be sure to post it as a responce to "only built for soviet links"
Thanks for your comments!!!
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
why not go fuck yourself stalinist fuck! in your head there is but nothing which work. you professor in university? how are you called??? as said in the english you are but "full of shit"
SovietSuka 3 years ago
lolol
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
And you want to know the real bitch, bro? I hate Stalin, and am fervently anti-Soviet style Socialism. But by no means can anyone with an understanding of history defend America, or seek to join in the already clamorous attacks on Stalin's Soviet Union as if is *even comparable* to America's vicious past.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
You are a very mis-informed confused young lad.Alas here in America you have the right to be stupid.
Does your mommy know you,re up this late?
jetroavery08 3 years ago
If that's the best you can do, if that's the extent of your historical understanding, if that's the limit to your ability to retort - you've won my arguement for me.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
I simply do not think you are worth my time.All of your years of experience,studies and travels have definitely won the day.You are tooooo cool.
jetroavery08 3 years ago
I sure am. Thanks for the back-up. Have a nice day!
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
lol
jetroavery08 3 years ago
That's the problem with pseud-communists -- they argue for the sake of argument regardless of how grossly inaccurate their claims are and when you point this out to them, they somehow declare victory. It's like arguing with a small child. Did you see his video of him and his pals playing revolutionaries as they "liberated" a farm house. So gay.
GovermentLiesToYou 3 years ago
Your homophobic fear of sexual inadequacy aside, the point being made is that Stalin's crimes are uncomparable to America's. If you're going to make movies criticizing horror and slaughter, you should be focusing on the real criminal, instead of dividing people's attention among lesser thugs.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Your kind of confussing the issues and trying to draw some kind of cross comparitive analisis in the process. What does that have to do with Stalinism and the Cult of Personality? The point of this video is to humorously make fun of Stalin's portrail of himself as some kind of benevolent father figure and victor of the Great Patriotic War when he was anything but. Stalin was a monster, out done only by hitler. Who are these "real" criminals I'm somehow protecting with my propaganda???
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
I wasn't directing that criticism about movie making at you so much as these people who complain about the USSR (and, for that matter, Nazi Germany) while neglecting to even mention the nations that have killed far more than either of those terrible dictatorships combined; particularly the United States. By creating a clamour around Soviet atrocities, people forget that America killed 40 million slaves (and never paid the survivors any reparations.)
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
"Black & White" (1933) is a wonderful short soviet propaganda piece which better encapulates your point, though I find it difficult to believe that 40 million slaves were killed when only about 5 million slaves existed in the US by 1870 after emancipation. Ironic, wouldn't you say that you unknowningly spread soviet propaganda because you are a true believer. Thank you for your comments and validation.
"To kill 1 man -- that's a tragity. To kill 1million -- that's a statistic!!!" -Stalin
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
40 million is inclusive not just of slaves murdered in America due to slavery on our soil, but of all of the African slaves dumped in the ocean on unsafe slave boats, all of the Africans hunted down and murdered in their homelands. 40 million is what white people acknowledge - its the conservative figure. The figure is estimated to be between 60-100 million dead as a result of the world slave trade.
This has nothing to do with Soviet propaganda - but what American historians admit!
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Please show me where you found these figures. Strangly, they are the exact number experts estimate were killed during Stalin's rule.
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
Continued from my reply to that other fellow:
Howard Zinn, coming from a moderate estimation, puts it in his "A People's History of the United States," : "It is roughly estimated that Africa lost 50 million human beings to death and slavery in those centuries we call the beginnings of modern Western civilization[.]"
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Continued again: Organizations such as the New Black Panther Party, the Black Hebrew Israelites, the Nation of Islam, the African People's Socialist Party, the International Democratic Uhuru Movement, and the Poor Righteous Party of the Black Nation (to name a few) estimate 100 million and higher.
If the numbers are equal to the total number of people the Soviets killed, this merely goes to show America is no better. But lest we forget, Africans were only ONE PART of America's victims!
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
So you've never read any scholarly information, just propaganda prepared by extremist groups and whatever you can find in B&N... this is what makes up your informed opinion?
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
I'm citing the first American historians, who are all moderate (and some even right-wing) and place the figure between 20-40 million. I didn't blindly accept anything except the general consensus among people who have researched those events.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
And indeed, there are many radical pro-black parties and organizations across the world who place those estimates far higher - whether that's based on conclusive evidence or not is a greater question, one which I haven't the ability to answer, which is why I rest at the conservative 20-40 million figures - which are bad enough as they stand.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
By your figures, that means every slave ship or slave capture resulted in at least a 90% casualty rate. 500 Slaves per ship - 50 survive to be sold? Slaves were treated like cattle by American Law -- you can't make money if 90% of your stock dies enroute. In reality up to a third died in passage. Roughly - if 5 million Africans are in the US by 1870, lets say that that's 2/3rds of a whole that survived passage, how many died in passage?
morgandrama 3 years ago
One of the reasons slavery was a very profitable business because the Dutch slavers were in cahoots with the more powerful African Tribesman who helped captured and sold off rival tribes. The easier they were to capture, the more slave survive passage, the more money one stands to profit.
morgandrama 3 years ago
Again, passage was extremely dangerous. But on top of that, the highly exaggerated claims that African tribesman gave up most of the men who would be slaves are rooted in a small number of examples. Most African tribes resisted and fought - resulting in a mostly dead tribe and a few isolated captured individuals who were then given to slavery. Profit was certainly the goal, but it was not that easy to acquire.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Dude - this guy is a fucking dolt. He doesn't know what he's talking about. He just argues without reason. Did you check his videos? There is one of him playing revolutionaries with his friends....
blondBEAST1800 3 years ago
Its actually true that the majority of slaves died at sea. Indeed, you can't make money if your slaves die - which is why the cost of slaves was high enough to pay for the ship and crew who - if they died at sea - were no loss to you. The thought process was, "there's enough negroes in Africa to make up for it." Saying only a third died in passage would make for quite an engineering feat for the vessels employed for this practice in that time - which were often light transport boats.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
you draw conjecture basised on your own observation regardless of how skewed or warped your perseption is. You don't adhear to reason. If you take a 90% lose in anything, how do you make enough money to operate, let alone turn a profit. Your a becon for communist propaganda
morgandrama 3 years ago
Its a simple equasion based on common sense. Slavery was profitable because they were in high demand in the Americas - a place that badly needed manual labor to continue expanding production. Who cares about risking your few white slaver employees when its all profit if even a handful survive to come back?
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
What's your feild of study
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
Pan-African studies. Although if you're asking in reference to the lecture, that's about the Cuban revolution and its impact today.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Your kidding me right?
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
And what impact has it had?
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
aside from fashion
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
The Cuban Revolution has done a great deal to lift many people out of desperate situations where Imperial powers don't find it profitable to proceed. Recently, a doctor from the Gambia spoke here in my city about Cuba's generous medical assistance. They trained many medical professionals, and in the meantime cut the rate of malaria cases from some 300,000 to 100,000. But the Cuban revolution goes through time, inspiring many revolutionaries - and setting an example for how Socialism can work.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Basically Che got his face on the tee shirt of every hipster from coast to coast. Malaria and such diseases don't exist in the western world. Why?
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
...dude, malaria doesn't exist here because America isn't a tropical climate. And at any rate, the Gambia is a Capitalist nation - just one of the exploitED rather than exploitING. Cuba is a tropical Socialist nation, and it doesn't have a malaria problem - due partly to a very advanced healthcare system.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
at any rate your wrong, Malaria was Eradicated in the United States by 1951 - you actually don't know a thing about what your talking about. You read one book then make the rest up as you go along. Please, go stick your head back into the sand.
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
See, you're just being an asshole about this for no reason. I did look at the CDC website and I cede that indeed, it did exist here - albeit to a very small degree which was easily fixable, and even then only in the sub-tropical southeast (like Louisiana, Florida, et al.) I had thought, based on its present day sites of incidence, that it was a tropical disease. And I'm not really wrong; I simply wasn't aware it was ever a problem here, minor or otherwise.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
"Malaria or a disease resembling malaria has been noted for more than 4,000 years. From the Italian for "bad air," mal'aria has probably influenced to a great extent human populations and human history."
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
"CDC's origins are closely linked to malaria control activities in the US. On July 1 1946 in Atlanta, the Communicable Disease Center was created as a new component of the US Public Health Service."
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
Malaria is not a tropical disease, you are wrong. you don't read, and you will never learn anything because you can never be wrong, that's your problem. look at the map of Distribution of malaria in the United States, 1882-1935. in 1882 it was in almost 30 states, even the ones by canada which is NOT the sub tropics.
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
If there is swamp, there is malaria. Malaria only exists in the third world (south america, south east asia and africa) not beecause its a tropical disease but because its the only place it hasn't been eradicated yet. Its pointless to argue with someone who can't even get their facts straight.
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
Even in the Russia there is this problem in the small bug like flea with wing. But Russia 76 in 80 in world with problem. Very small problem, but world warming make bigger.
SovietSuka 3 years ago
You know, I already agreed I was mistaken. I don't see why you have to drive it on. "[Malaria] is widespread in tropical and subtropical regions, including parts of the Americas, Asia, and Africa." Can't you see how one might deduce malaria is a tropical disease from that paragraph? Instead, that's simply where it spreads quickly (due to higher mosquito and similar insect species which spread it, in particular) And if you look at a map of distribution, youll see that it is only strong in tropics
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Google: malaria, us
Second article down: History: Eradication of Malaria in the United States (1947-1951 ...
See, this is what you do: you wikipedia something (which is NOT a credible source of information), misinterpret the first few sentances, then formulate an argument, not based on well researched fact, but your own skewed observation. It's called free-based assosiation because you'd have to be on crack in order to think that way. You are a fool. Read a book and stop using wikipedia.
morgandrama 3 years ago
Yeah - based on its present day sites of incidence - that's your problem, you don't actually do research, you draw conclutions on baseless observation regardless of fact. your a fucking moron
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
Majo - I got this... Man you are dense. There is no way you go to college - no college educated person would make baseless claims even when research is spoonfed. You've ignored not only my points but everyone elses. And there is no way you looked at the CDC website and came up with that conclution. And you mean "ect." not "et al." your not listing defendants or authors, et alia (and others) can refer only to persons, not things. You're so ignorant its fustrating. Seriously stop talking.
morgandrama 3 years ago
There's mountains of evidence for the subject; I've ignored no one's points, and addressed every fallacious arguement you guys have presented in the defense of slavery's human cost!
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
And I absolutely looked at the CDC website... Read on further in the posts, or look at the site yourself. I'll QUOTE from that site: "Rainfall can create collections of water ('breeding sites') where Anopheles eggs are deposited, and larvae and pupae develop into adulthood, a process that takes approximately 9-12 days in tropical areas. Such breeding sites may dry up prematurely in the absence of further rainfall, or conversely they can be flushed and destroyed by excessive rains."
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Then you would have seen the map of Distribution of malaria in the United States, 1882-1935 and noticed that cases of malaria were as far north as Canada which would make it not a tropical disease.... your a fool.
morgandrama 3 years ago
And FINALLY, the Latin "et al" (which you clearly only know about because you googled it once) means "and others" as proper nouns, which would INCLUDE not only people's names but entities such as a particular location, nation, organization, or corporation; the first category to which Florida and Louisiana would belong.
I don't know why you try to attack Latin as if its relevent, however. If you have such great evidence to prove that slavery was a deathless phenomenon, I'd like to see it.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
idiot - no one said slavery was a deathless phenomenon. The argument is American Slavery did not cause the death of 100 million people. or 50 million. or 40 million. Yes people died and its a tragity, but your numbers are ASTRONOMICALLY inaccuate. in 1945 six million jews were killed, do you understand how difficult a feat that was to accompish at that time? An no, if you are listing states, unless its a court case, ect is what is used, not et al: Winston, et al vs. The State of Vigina, et al
morgandrama 3 years ago
The population of africa in 1950 was about 222 million people. Basically what you are saying is that by 1870 the United States alone killed about half the population of an entire contentent, when the slave trade in africa was a world wide phenomenon, whose participents included most of europe and were engaging in the slave trade centuries before America was even an independent nation. You're an idiot and you need to read a history text book and get your facts straight.
morgandrama 3 years ago
As majo tried to explain, your point which is America mass murdered 100s of millions of Africans in genocide is a bit of Soviet Distortion. Yes people died, yes it was a tragity, yes we all wish it never happened, but it did not happen at the massive scale at which you present, nor without the cooperation of rival African tribes. Most slaves died not in the capture, but during the transporation, basically a third of every ship.
morgandrama 3 years ago
5 million free Africans by 1870 (13% of the US total Population) - say they are all survivors, i'll give you the benifit of the doubt, if 50 million die, that means 90% of the slaves die in transit. In other words, the US killed more then the total population of the US at the time. The Nazi's pioneered a death industry to kill 6 million jews, which was unthinkable at the time, and you mean to tell me that in 1870 more then ten times the amount of people were killed?
morgandrama 3 years ago
SIX MILLION PEOPLE. Do you know how hard it is to kill six million people. Do you understand the lengths at which this feat was undertaken. Before Aschwitz and the death camps the Nazi's couldn't kill the Jews fast enough, they weren't even making a scratch in the Jewish population. Before 1945 a nation mass-murdering six million people was inconsevable. The Black Death, which killed a third of Europe (25-50 million people) was seen as a punishment from God, something man couldn't possible do.
morgandrama 3 years ago
Pol Pot was only able to kill about 2 million of his own people by 1998. Stalin on the otherhand between massive starvation, purges, political exicutions, through the Gulag slavery system, the exicution of returning POWs, ect, killed millions and millions of his own people, so large that it remains a heated debate till this day but is about 20 million.
morgandrama 3 years ago
There are basically two schools of thought when it comes to the number who died at Stalin's hands. There's the "Why doesn't anyone realize that communism is the absolutely worst thing ever to hit the human race, without exception, even worse than both world wars, the slave trade and bubonic plague all put together?" school, and there's the "Come on, stop exaggerating. The truth is horrifying enough without you pulling numbers out of thin air" school.
morgandrama 3 years ago
quote taken from "Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm"
morgandrama 3 years ago
Your evidence is congecture, your argument is sloppy, your points unfounded and your facts are non-existant. You regurgitate inaccurices and distortions without doing any of your own reseach or at least checking the sources taking them at face value as gossple. You should be ashamed of yourself. I am for actually tring to educate you. Please, go back to your dilussions and stop ruining peoples enjoyment.
morgandrama 3 years ago
Stalinism has nothing to do with Communism, as a note. There is certainly exaggeration - for both the death toll under Stalin and for the slave trade. But no one can deny that both were at *best* equally as slaughterous. This is why Stalinism and Capitalism are equally as horrible for the world - and both should be abolished in the march of history.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Of course 6 million people were hard to kill - but Hitler managed to do it in about a decade! Pol Pot had much less than that, and a smaller population base to deal with. The Stalin figure of 20 million is certainly an impossibility; half of that would be possible, but a quarter of that is more likely. But even if we take your liberal estimate of 20 million for Stalin and the conservative estimate for America, double standards aside, they are equally as murderous states.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
90% would be high mortality. And although mortality was high, again, I'd avoid the 50 million figure in favor of the conservative 20 estimates, which would make mortality a much more reasonable 50%.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
I don't contend - for there is no way to know for sure - that 100s of millions died. But there is ample evidence to suggest upwards of 20 million; which would be more than the Nazis killed, by far. To claim it is all Soviet distortion is quite the conspiracy theory. I never read any Soviet work on the subject, and I doubt every American historian is under the influence of any select Soviet array of works.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
This entire paragraph is unproductive and needlessly insulting. Frankly, I find no enjoyment in lowering myself to your level. If you want to discuss facts, why must you continuously drag all of us in to the muddy arena of insults? Is it perhaps because you find no logical way to debate without diverting the conversation away from reality and in to the recesses of your childish reaction to your sense of dominance being threatened? If I were you, I'd ponder this before you open your mouth again.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
I disagree through the passages of history Stalin and communism and capitalism go hand and hand with his ideals and murderous actions against anyone who did not conform it is a ploy to keep the people in chains you want to be a comrade fool you
catm266 3 years ago
What?
Allow me to reiterate: Stalinism was indeed quite evil and resulted in millions of deaths; just like Capitalism. But Stalinism does not equal Communism, and this is why I am most definitely a Communist; both Anti-Stalinist and Anti-Capitalist.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Lets agree: Most Slaves Died at sea. Lets say 50 million died. In 1870 there were 5 million Africans representing 13% of the population of the US. For argument sake, lets say these 5 million were the survivers. Remember that these boats have to cross the atlantic and hold about 500 people. if 5 out of 50 million survive, that means 90% died at sea, meaning only 50 slaves made it to the mainland per boat. Slavery was a very profitable business, how can you make money if you lose 90 of your stock?
morgandrama 3 years ago
I know, you just get more africans, but that costs money. How much did it cost to run a slaving operation? How much was the average slave bought for? How much would that be in todays money? I think if you examined this from an economic/monetary perspective you'd find your numbers are laughable. No business can operate at a 90% material loss. I milk 100 gallons of milk but lose 90 going to the market. I sell 10 gallons of milk. indulge me - how much do I charge for each gallon?
morgandrama 3 years ago
The answer is not enough to pay for the upkeep of my cows, milking them, bottling the milk, shipping costs, taxes, then selling those ten gallons of milk to a store so they can turn around and sell them for a profit. No one is going to buy a $1000 gallon of milk. Sure my example is stupid but so is your argument. When you have the operational costs of a slave operation, the average price of a slave and what that translates in todays dollars, maybe we can examin this further. Till then...
morgandrama 3 years ago
Excellent point morgan! You defeated his nonsense using economics! I would add that by 1857 there we about 23 million private serfs (slaves) in Russia. By comparison, the United States had approximately 4 million slaves by 1860. The bottom line really is one thing has nothing to do with the other, regardless of whatever baseless estimate you create. You can't really compaire what Stalin did to anything else in history. Its a truly unique occurance
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
Also, slavery existed in Russia since the 11th century - in America only 200 years, less then any other developed nation.
Look, the point your pushing is propaganda created by the Soviet Minisitry as a way to create dissidence. Its very funny that you fight for it so feavorishly. All those book you've read all get their numbers from the same place, a soviet black propaganda campain. Try reading some scholarly works. Check the sources of the books you've read. You will find you are misinformed
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
Almost all of those serfs were native Russians - they were not imported. As a result, they had an (unsurprisingly) low casualty rate in the acquisition of their neo-chattel. Its not comparable, because it involved no holocaust.
And to claim that the American slave holocaust is a "Soviet invention" is the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard. I can't fathom the thought processes of a person who denies slavery was horrifically genocidal for African people.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
SCALE - The scale at which it was conducted. You don't listen. You haven't listened. You'll never listen. So many people have tried to explain this to you. The invention is the scale at which is occured, the exageration, not that Africans did not die. Slavery is forcing people into bondage, Genocide is the systematic irratication people. What the Nazis did to the Jew is Genocide. Americans to Africans, that's slavery not a holocaust. The propaganda is in the semantics.
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
RESULT - The result of the enslavement of Africans is what I am discussing, just as you argue about the result of Stalinism. Both had non-genocidal intentions, both resulted in basically that.
By engaging in a *systematic* enslavement of a particular kind of people which has, as an impossible escapable result, an extremely high casualty rate for that people, you are knowingly and intentionally engaging in the equivalent to an eradication of a large portion of those people. THAT is a holocaust
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
dude - i'm countering your argument before you make it.
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
again, your assuming 100 million people were killed or 40 million were killed. Your pulling numbers from thin air. They are astronmical. People who estimate stalin killed 100 million people scholars don't take seriously, but they sell a lot of books at your B&N. Read morgan's milk analogy, she makes a lot of sense when you think about it. How would this high slave price effect the price of cotton? The lower the cost of production, the more profits right? Your numbers don't add up.
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
You're not countering anything, bro. All your doing is defending slavery by arguing that either: A.) "Not that many people died" or B.) "America didn't WANT to kill them." But the reality is, they DID want to enslave them, and the KNEW that meant the majority of kidnapped Africans would die. In your logic, its okay for Stalin to sign death warrants if all he INTENDED to do was sign papers, whether or not that led to someone dying because of it. Do you understand what I'm explaining to you?
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Your right, becuase you ignore what I say and find something else a sob over
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
boo! hoo! I love stalin and russia! it's not fair that my great leader is tarnished! so many other bad things happened in the world! boo hoo! The soviet union fell, remember?
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
every so often another nucklehead like you comes storming around my video with their words and redoric arguing away at irrelivent shit about US foreign policy or slavery or about the war in iraq. Please understand that this is a work of comedy for people with an understanding of Russian history and who have studies Russian propaganda, hence "only built for Soviet Links"
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
I never said your video was bad. In fact, I like it a lot. Its very humorous, much as my own DPRK videos (come on, James Brown and North Korea were never combined so well before...) Either way, I favorited this shit... lol
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
lol, see, this is your mistake. You think I support the USSR and/or Stalin. I do not. I just disagree that Stalin was the worst thing to happen in the world. Capitalism, and the carry-over slavery that it exploited for profit for so long, has left a much worse mark in the world. While criticism of Stalin is great and progressive, it is a misdirected focus. Stalin's not around anymore, nor is the USSR. But Capitalism, in all its infamy, is.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
Do you live in communist country or have you just read the book? Do you really hate capitalism or do you just hate your father like Marx?
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
See, now you're just being rude. I live in the US, but I have many friends and acquaintences who have been to, lived in, and live in Cuba (which is the only nation I think can be called Socialist, now and so far.) As for my familial relations, I love both my mother and father, thank you. I hate the economic system that forced all of my friends and family back in my hometown in to poverty, and that has done the most evil things in documented history to untold numbers of innocent human beings.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
But you have never lived in a communist country for any length of time. You've sat in the good old US of A, free to read your books produced for no other reason the capitalism, freely engaging in capitalism
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
Was there a "Final Solution" in this American Slave Holocaust? Was there a meeting to determen how the United States would systematically kill every African in Africa in an effort to purge them from the planet, ie conduct genocide or a Holocaust? I thought Slavery was an evil practive half the country used to harvest raw materials to maximize profits, a practice that nearly tore our country apart. How about all the union troops who died in the civil war. Why not add them to your estimate too?
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
The union troops fought to end slavery, and I would certainly agree that its slavery's fault that they died. But I think its much more relevent to focus on the people who were abducted from their homelands, only to die at sea or be tortured in the world's first constitutional "democracy." No, there was no conspiracy to kill Africans, but there was a conspiracy to abduct and enslave them - which CONSCIOUSLY resulted in their mass deaths.
ComradeMartin 3 years ago
You realize your projecting 40 million people killed by 1870 would be like the US killing about 20% of the total population of Africa in 1950. Your numbers are astronomical and I can't imagine what scholarly source you took them from.
MajoKARATEinc 3 years ago
don't get that
MustangGT520 4 years ago
Good video! Can you make the same about Bush and Irac people. Before bombing life and after - you can name it price of democtracy and at the end ? You can mixed it with sausage delusion of Bush.
And you can make the clip about Klinton and Kosovo - life before atack and after and mix it with Monicka pasion - oh babe, oh babe...
Same action - the meaning the same - polititions are all m.. f.. and don't care about people they care about there sausage! :)
Smart2080 4 years ago
damn that guy was a god
TribalStudios18 4 years ago
and so "The Cult of Personality" still lives on today, as that is exactly what Stalin wished you to believe...
MajoKARATEinc 4 years ago
I'm guessing those were the teutonic knights at the beginning?
nightfall221 4 years ago
yep ur right AGe of Empires
TribalStudios18 4 years ago
Hahaha - you called him out on his video game playing!!!!
BarnicleBill2017 3 years ago
Stalin knew his business...
Heikii 4 years ago
interesting
demonickin0 4 years ago
oh what a tangled web we weave. nice video, I see the irony...lol
manding00 4 years ago
I must be stupid, because I don't see it.
mzxrules 4 years ago
das lied is toll^^
westOiboy 4 years ago
sorry for the ignorance.
bluntsalot 4 years ago
Whatever man, you still ROCK! That's the reason why I made this video: to enlighten minds and lighten hearts! Thanks for the comments :)
Enjoy till next time
MajoKARATEinc
MajoKARATEinc 4 years ago