Cartoon Demands the government take over of businesses to do war crimes
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (85)
sorted by:
This is the dumbest analogy EVER, a comparison to the Elon situation is if Japanese companies were responsible for navigation of the navy and simply refused to scout ahead to enable Pearl Harbour.
Not only are you essentially doing an attack designed to kill and destroy as much as possible than capture anything (like Pearl Harbour) you are also demanding a private firm go out of their way to enable something that was never enabled in the first place. If this is such a 'patriotic' war, everyone whining about Elon, go to the Ukrainian frontlines and fight yourself or STFU.
This comment by YesMovement still applies, from the post about CNN asking the State Dept to chastise Musk.
Ukraine is not, and has never been, an American ally, you glue-doer.
It is Joe Biden's personal laundromat.
Also, Germany steamrolled France in 3 days. If their tanks hadn't worked, it would have saved Germany a matter of hours.
Edit: Nice name...
Thank you. It's a real thorn in my side when talking about history at times.
Eh, if the tanks hadn't started, France probably would have held. The tank charge through the Argonne forest at near road-speeds caught the French seriously off guard, as their plan involved reinforcing Belgium at the river, holding the Maginot line, and dealing with a force comprised of only light infantry in the forest. Without tanks to rush the lightly-defended gap, France might well have had time to deploy their reserves to reinforce the Argonne and held the Germans off.
They get a lot of shit for losing quickly, but if German tank development had been 10 years behind the curve, they would've been victorious.
Also of note, the invasion of Poland was not nearly as successful as historians would have you believe. If only Germany had invaded, it would've been hard fighting.
Kill switches will be mandatory on all vehicles sold after 2027, but the moron who drew this happily votes for the people who legislated that.
Also, Elon never provided Starlink service over Crimea. Zero. Nothing.
That is a big insight. They want to use the Killswitch, not let others.
They probably don't even like cars and like the government. It's a weird way to go through life, but people do it.
What if it was the german tanks not starting?
Something something fascism
Don't forget straight up lying too. "Never turned on" is not the same as "turned off"
It's a pattern they use for propaganda.
First way makes entirely false but highly emotional claims.
Second wave falls back to realistic claims in words but with the same over the top emotion of the wave of lies.
It's not a coincidence or mistake.
Germans had stuff from Ford Motor Co, too. There were reasons beyond simply "getting cheap cars for German consumers" that Volkswagon was founded.
Yeah, there's a reason it was dangerous to allow corporations to go transnational/globalist in the first place.
Where did the West go wrong? Somewhere in the "Merchant of Venice" era when the traders went from being near pariahs (and sharing a god with thieves), to respectable people.
I read the book Shogun years ago, which is about a 1600's Englishman stranded in Japan. One of the major themes is the clash of cultures and values between him and his hosts.
There's a scene that has always registered with me where a merchant has their stall and goods destroyed; I can't remember the cause. The main character tells his translator that this is terrible and she basically replies: "Why? This man produces nothing. He exploits the farmer who grows the food by buying it for a pittance and then marks it up, selling it to us for more than it's worth."
I do believe that the "middlemen" that move goods to market and retail them do provide some value, but it's always annoyed me that no matter the industry, the middlemen always seems to make much more money than the producer.
Just ask local farmers. They make more money selling directly to people than they do selling to corporations. The people also save money by buying a farmer's produce directly from them, as its cheaper. For instance, you can buy a whole/half/quarter cow, have it butchered, pick exactly what kinds of cuts you want, and freeze the meat, and save lots of money over buying it at the store as needed.
I've heard about the quarter/half cow process but it comes out to like $8 or $9 per lb of meat. That's what I pay for tenderloin so I'm not sure how that is competitive.
It's cheaper if you're willing to do your own butchery.
Because for the same 8 or 9 bucks a pound you also get shit like T-bone cuts. On average it is still significantly cheaper.
Huh? For $9/lb I get tenderloin from the local market.
How dense are you? Every cut you're getting from a whole cow is the same price. So the T-bone that is normally 12 bucks a lb is the same price as the tenderloin you're fixated on.
See how that makes it cheaper on average yet?
People brag about paying $9/lb and getting ground beef and chuck roast from their half cow deal. And they get a tenderloin too, sure.
Or I can just buy the tenderloin for $9/lb and the ground meat for $4/lb from the market. I'm getting a cheaper deal from my local supermarket.
Ah, Shogun. The fictional take on the life of the very real William Adams. The miniseries was pretty good too, but I don't think that scene was in it.
That's actually a major facet of the Confucian class system, which sprang up in China but was adopted across the rest of East Asia as Chinese influence took root many centuries ago. Since merchants were indeed seen as producing nothing by their own hand, but instead move around the goods produced by others, they were ranked lowest in this system, beneath both farmers and craftsmen. (In China the top class were the scholars, thought to be the wisest on account of having to pass the imperial examination; in Japan it was the 'kuge', civil nobility, until they were overthrown & marginalized alongside the imperial family itself by the samurai toward the end of the Heian Period.)
I read Shogun, Tai-Pan, and King Rat. All good. (Tai-Pan prob the least exciting) The merchant scene stuck with me as well. King rat is basically an extension of the merchant mindset. Just he's a POW running contraban and favors instead of rice and silk. At least he has a better motivation / redemption arc.
Tai-Pan has it on a macro scale. I can't remember the fictional admiral's name.. or was it an admiral? It was something like Commodore Perry. Every time China or Japan would close off a market or harbor to the west and confiscate/arrest/slaughter he'd roll a couple of gunships up a river shelling the elites, and business would be reopened. Which is essentially what the US foreign policy still is to this day. Only.. it's benefitting a very small group of oligarchs, versus the greater population.
" Oh yes, the farmers and city people will surely be more wealthy once that pesky middle man is gone, right? He wasn't providing value to anyone! After all, the people can just travel to the countryside and buy their produce direct from the farmer.
Wait, wait, you're telling me that isn't feasible? That there will be a massive loss of efficiency in the economy? That crops will rot in the fields? Okay, what we need is for government to collect all the produce and distribute it at a fair price. What price is that? Well, we have these experts... "
And I'm sure you know how well that sort of system will work out. My point is that the merchant is providing economic value by being the middleman, and moreover the notion that he is not is typical of leftist thought.
In a properly functioning free market the end consumer decides how much the service the middleman is providing is worth. That service includes connecting producers to consumers, taking on the cost and risk of carrying inventory, opportunity cost, and more. Those services are in fact extremely valuable, both to the producer and to the consumer. If you think about it a bit you'll see why. For example, how much are a farmer's crops worth to him if they rot in his field? How much is a watermelon that you have to walk 10 miles to buy worth?
Now don't get me wrong, there absolutely are cases where the middlemen abuse the system through anti-competitive behaviors like collusion, monopolies, and so forth, and I do believe in (minimal) regulation to prevent those exploits.
From all that I've studied of history, it seems undeniable that cultivating a strong business class & commercial traditions definitely goes a long way to making a country strong. It's how the Italian & Dutch maritime powers were able to punch way above their weight for centuries (Venice vs. the Byzantines and the early Netherlands vs. Spain + Portugal, respectively). America, of course, was not only at its strongest but also most prosperous - for everyone, not just the uppermost crust of society - when the middle class was thriving. And China was approaching an early industrial revolution under its most innovative and merchant-friendly dynasty, the Song, who had set up what we might recognize as a proto-capitalist system with the world's first paper money, joint-stock companies, etc.
It's difficult to imagine a world where the Song got to continue on that trajectory instead of being crippled by the Jurchens & then obliterated by the Mongols. It would, at minimum, certainly have been a world where China consistently remains the top world power. As it was, instead China historically got centuries of stagnation under the neo-Confucian Ming and then oppression & ridiculous amounts of corruption (even by Chinese imperial standards) under the Qing. The same is true of Korea (more neo-Confucian stagnation) and Japan (stagnation under the isolationist Tokugawa Shogunate, ultimately broken by Matthew Perry after said stagnation left them in the West's dust technologically).
Lol downvotes. This place can be nega-reddit sometimes
Kike
Based. Need to call them out whenever you can.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
No, but Cato, don't be an asshole to your fellow users, that was mean and uncalled for.
IBM was also hired to run the bureaucracy
Even subscribing to their interpretation of the war, it would be more like if "Ford" in this example was providing a radar or radio system to the French and decided it would be better to shut it off than have the Nazis, who know exactly where it is, bomb it immediately.
This is also hilarious considering all of the leftists who got upset at companies like Microsoft and Amazon for providing services to the military not too long ago.
Not even. A better analogy would be if Ford provided satellite coverage over most of France, but never its borders, but France started making demands that Ford start also covering the borders, specifically because they wanted to launch an attack against their neighbours using the coverage system as a wartime tool, and Ford refused.
oy
This attack was made right after Elon started talking about suing the ADL.
It's literally a planned coordinated attack, not a natural complaint in any way.
Hoover was right.
We should have let Hitler and Stalin beat their nations bloody and then conquer whichever one was left standing.
> SpaceX restricted from hiring non-US citizens by law. Gets criticized for not violating the law and hiring non-US citizens.
> Starlink restricted from offering service in Russian territory by law. Gets criticized for not violating the law and turn on service in restricted areas.
Plus, only in clown world is France defending itself within its borders equivalent to Ukraine attacking ports outside its borders.
In the minds of the US military/politics, crimea is now US/NATO territory.
If this had happened, WW2 would not have happened. Germany offered peace terms after the invasion of Poland. France and UK told them to pound sand (encouraged by FDR). They sued for peace again after the invasion of France / driving the British expeditionary force back across the channel. Shit only dialed up to 11 after the Soviets seeing Germany beginning to fall into a quagmire, started preparing an invasion of Europe.
Great Britain had made a secret deal with Poland to instigate a war against Germany. Check out this link that has lots of info on this:
https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html
Britain wanted a war with Germany, and used Poland as a useful idiot to do it. Even if Poland instigated the war, Britain would ally with Poland against Germany. Poland was extremely hostile to the German people living within its newly created borders. Before the end of WW1, all of that land belonged to Germany (then called Prussia), and most of those Germans had lived there for hundreds, if not over one thousand years (many millions of them). The Poles had begun to exterminate the ethnic Germans. Poland had attacked Germany multiple times, openly bragged they could defeat Germany on their own, and openly gave out their invasion plans for Germany. This is what precipitated Germany's invasion of Poland.
However, since Britain didn't give a shit about Poland, Britain only declared war against Germany, but not against Soviet Russia, which invaded Poland at the exact same time. Weird.
I swear to God, even as someone who like to challenge the orthodox narrative, this has never occurred to me. I mean I know Britain didn't declare war against USSR in response to their invasion of Poland, the magnitude of the disparate response is ... interesting.
See the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for how well peace treaties with Germany worked out
There is ample evidence that Barbarossa was in response to an impending Soviet invasion, the English language wiki is more critical of the idea than sources from outside the Anglosphere.
This is backed up by Stalin's comments about the peace being temporary.
I'm sure Stalin was up to something, but blitzing all the way to Moscow isn't the kind of plan you just make up in a few months.
It can be. Barbarossa has always been a head scratcher for professional and amateur historians alike. By all accounts Germany was outmanned and out gunned going into the offensive. The traditional, and pretty unsatisfactory, explanation is that Hitler was a madman bent on world domination. Suvelov's proposal of a desperate preemptive strike makes a lot more sense. As to why Germany made it as far as they did; if the Soviets were posturing for offence, striking first gave Germany a chance. An army preparing for invasion is organized completely different from one preparing for defense; most of Soviet war materiel was at the front line and once they lost that they were at a severe disadvantage for some time.
It should also be noted that the blood enemies of the national socialists were the communists, and the people behind the communists held power in Soviet Russia, people who had tried multiple communist revolutions in Weimar Germany before the NSDAP took power. The Germans probably knew they'd have no peace in their lifetime so long as Soviet Russia remained. I also wonder if the Germans knew what the Soviets were doing to the ethnically White Russians, like in the Holodomor.
Both explanations lack satisfaction. Germany was hellbent on decapitating the USSR and seizing every useable raw material, which they badly needed. Otherwise, invading Russia is pure folly, whether the Soviets planned to eventually invade or not. That's very different from destroying supplies at the border.
Without getting into the why and how of Barbarossa, this is a pretty bad take. If the USSR was going to invade, the ideal time to respond would have been when the USSR was "almost but not quite ready" to invade. That's the gist of Suvelov's idea. You don't just turn on an invasion, you have to prepare; if your opponent beats you to the punch, you've taken two steps backwards. Decapitating the USSR was required for the success of Barbarossa; that's how modern mechanized wars are fought. Germany failed.
I don't think you read the full meaning of my comment. Germany invaded in large part to capture Russia's resources to fuel their global war effort. The element of defense may or may not have existed, but the element of opportunism certainly existed.
Generally, yes. But 70 years of technological advancement later, we are witnessing the complete opposite of mechanized high tempo warfare in Ukraine.
Hence why Germany had the Russian invasion in mind before '41.
I'm sure you'd be saying the same thing if roles were changed, right? Look, I get that WW2 is much more complicated than the history they try to sell us, I'm not cucking for The Narrative or anything. But switch things around. If you're American, imagine they'd invaded Mexico, or Canada, or even somewhere in South America, then asked for peace. We also would have told them to pound sand. It's one thing not to get involved, it's another to legitimize the violent expansion of a rival. It's easy to say they should have accepted peace, but there's a very real concern that that peace wasn't offered in good faith, and they'd be next.
No matter how you feel about the stunning and brave national socialists, I can see why European powers weren't interested in playing nice. And other foreign powers using underhanded tactics to take out sovereign countries isn't great either. Too bad it's so popular, even today, but that's another matter.
Another thing that comes to mind is Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time!"
Edit: meant to respond to u/Kienan
I can both criticize the evils of the Nazi regime and claim that the unilateral -- and not uncontroversial at the time -- UK/France defense pacts with Poland were the primary cause of the broader Second World War. The modern equivalent of Halifax's agreement with Poland would have been Victoria Nuland creating an agreement with Ukraine that obligated the US to put troops on the ground in the event of a Russian invasion, without the approval of congress.
The history of the Free City of Danzing and the German population of Poland should be understood here. In Danzing, Germans were being deprived of rights and property under the Polish government, a situation that accelerated after Halifax's agreement with Poland. Why not ethnically cleans Germans if Britain will come to your aid if Germany tries to prevent it?
You can only "Counter-attack" if you've been attacked. France was not attacked yet when they declared war to Germany and prepared for initial attack. In fact, it was called "Drole de guerre" at the beginning because even though Germany and France were at war, there was barely any conflict.
Renault (French company) was the main supplier of the French army (actual Renault founder got a medal because he was also main supplier during WW1). Otherwise, they also used a bunch of other French companies (Citroen, CLM, etc.) or form other countries like UK. So even if Ford was out, they still had the majority of their armies
Even if they had no vehicles, French lost pathetically because they put all their forces on the "Ligne Maginot", and the German simply went around through Belgium. In fact, it would have maybe made things a little bit faster and reduce losses. If you're going to make such a bad analogy, at least take any other country than France which lost the war in 2 months.
It obviously has nothing to do with civilian-owned intelligence system, which is what Elon is about. It's not "Your army', it's not part of the military force (contrary to army trucks and tanks, or rifles, etc.), it's just some civilian-owned system that the military want to use but have no control over. If Elon Musk was actively building Starlink only for the military as part of their force, then it would be very different. But it's not the case. That's like if the military was using X for their main communication system, Elon would have 100% right to say "Look, I'm going to get killed and my company bombed by your stupid shit, I'm not the army, so get your shit together and get off my platform". Somethinh similar happened though, remember when Ukraine soldiers were bombed because people showed their location on Reddit? Whoops. Almost as if civilian stuff aren't made for war.
I agree on all counts except the third. The French built the Maginot Line specifically to force the Germans to go through Belgium, which was where they intended to fight the German army (thereby ensuring that French soil wouldn't be devastated like it was in WW1) under their strategy, the Dyle Plan (so named after the Dyle River in Belgium). What went wrong was that the Germans punched through the Ardennes forest, which the Allies had mistakenly concluded would be impassable for their panzers and thus left in the hands of their weakest formations to defend. The best units of the French Army were thus left trapped in the Low Countries with only scattered second-rate forces (and no real strategic reserve, since said reserve was committed to fight in Belgium already) left in the way of the German vanguard in France itself, hence, their total defeat shortly afterward.
The French strategy & generals were retarded, but not as retarded as they were in WW1, and to their credit the Dyle Plan was a little more sensible than its equivalent at the start of the latter conflict, Plan XVII.
Thank for the correction, it's been a while and I don't talk about the Maginot line very often, so I got stuff mixed up.
The tanks were made by Citreon? No wonder they didn't start...
Maybe outsourcing critical manufacturing to other countries has always been a dumb idea?
Cool. Then demand that John Deere gets also taken over by government. They software lock their tractors so farmer's don't have total control over them. Old article. Some farmers even use pirated software to circumvent those things. Strange that there wasn't an outcry for that.
That said Musk provided Starlink to Ukraine under the constraint to not use it offensively. You don't get to break such an agreement. It's the same reason why every European country had to ask Germany to deliver armaments & tanks to Ukraine - they bought them under the guarantee to only use them in defense of their own country.
If Starlink gets used offensively the Russians will see it as a military target. Will they be able to bring it down? Who knows. But nothing that is connected to a network is unhackable.
Ukraine is not an US ally. If they were and any defense treaties were, then the US would already fight in the Ukraine. The (the West) makes money by having Ukrainians die.
"How much did you pay for the engines?"
"Oh, we got them for free, with stipulations, then we broke those agreements!"
“Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah”
-Lefty Meme #571543967375919107474
The Bible says "If God is with us, who can be against us?"
Evil people turned it into "He who is not with us is against us."
Which eventually became "It is not enough to not be X. We must be explicitly anti-X."
Were all the tank engines owned by Henry Ford and leased to the French? If not, this analogy isn't the same at all.
I love how the subtext of the comic isn't that Elon Musk ought refrain from puting his thumb on the geo-political scale at all, but that he only ought to do so in order to combat "racism" and "anti-Semitism".
Of course if Starlink had existed during Iraq and Elon had prevented the US military from using it there these people would have creamed themselves over someone giving such a middle finger to George W Bush.
Friend/enemy all the way down.
Ruben Bawling his lefty eyes out. Cry more fag.
Note that this claim appeared directly after musk talked about suing the ADL.
I swear, the ADL is working really hard to make people anti-semitic.
Did Musk sell Starlink to Ukraine? Who was seeking use of Starlink and why?
Musk donated around 5k terminals to Ukraine near the beginning of the war. Ukraine wants to attach Starlink terminals to drones to make improvised cruise missiles to attack the Russian Navy in Sevastopol, Crimea, Russia. Using starlink terminals as missile guidance components is against ToS. Further more, Starlink service is banned in Russia, China, and several other nations. All terminals in the banned area cannot connect. Ukraine is demanding that SpaceX turn on coverage in Crimea, Russia as part of their attack. Because Musk refused to do so, thereby following ITAR regulations, the entire Jewish-Media Complex has been attacking him nonstop for months.
The "quote" at the bottom of the comic is completely fabricated.
It's just giving a jew an inch and them taking a mile as always.
fuck ukraine it's a fake country
At least the us Govt bought the vehicles unlike ukraine
Funny they mention Nazis and Ukraine...
So many words. this isn't a meme; it's an essay.