satanama666
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2019
- Messages
- 238
why do some romanians still admire this communist dictator?what bad things did he do that i can use as arguments to refute them,since not much is known about him besides communist propaganda?
Some fools say it was better during communism only because it was replaced by Jewish democracy.satanama666 said:why do some romanians still admire this communist dictator?what bad things did he do that i can use as arguments to refute them,since not much is known about him besides communist propaganda?
The truth is that at the moment Romania is in a worse situation than it was under Ceausescu...satanama666 said:why do some romanians still admire this communist dictator?what bad things did he do that i can use as arguments to refute them,since not much is known about him besides communist propaganda?
satanama666 said:why do some romanians still admire this communist dictator?what bad things did he do that i can use as arguments to refute them,since not much is known about him besides communist propaganda?
The Alchemist7 said:satanama666 said:why do some romanians still admire this communist dictator?what bad things did he do that i can use as arguments to refute them,since not much is known about him besides communist propaganda?
Because most of them are boomers and with time you have lower chances of remembering the bad things (nostalgia) and only the good things, most of them were the fact that they offered a work place and free house (yes i can say this was good) but the rest was a pile of trash.
Note that I will only express my personal views on this based on what I read and what I spoke with other people, and I am aware that there might be people here who have way more accurate and realistic information than I have.
I don't know if you are Romanian but the reality is, this regime had both advantages and disadvantages, good in some ways but negative in other ways.
The Alchemist7 said:Yet what I heard but I am not sure about, some people claim that this rationalization happened without the knowledge and permission of Ceausescu, and that whenever he was announcing a visit in a city, the `Security` (the name of the State Police) would fill up the shelves of surrounding shops so he can see that they are completely full. I also heard that Ceausescu would have stated that once the external debt was paid, more food was about to be introduced and sold in the shops across the country. Since this completely contradicts the previous statement, I don't know if either of them are true.
True. I heard there was another failed coup attempt in 1985 or so. He might have been the one giving orders but I wonder to what extent was he really in knowledge of what was happening in the country. Even assuming that his intentions were evil, is difficult for only two people (his wife too) to have full control over absolutely everything since as you said he was surrounded by traitors. If is true that the population was starved without his knowledge or permission, then it would mean he was not the head of all the evil, but then if he ordered the rationalization, I wonder if he really wanted to remove it once the debt was paid, as he would have stated. Still the debt could have been paid in a longer amount of time and without starving the nation, whether he took the decission or not.Inflorescentia said:The revolution was clearly many years in the making and designed to be used as a cover story for the actual coup-d'etat. This says to me that Ceausescu was genuinely doing his the best for Romania but got defeated by a bunch of scheming house kikes and his own inability to establish trusting relationships with his staff.
I don't have any information that he was jewish. In my opinion he doesn't look jewish either. Also is easiest to tell if someone is jewish when they are old as jewish physiognomic features are becoming more and more obvious then. If you have information that he was jewish please share it.Weassel said:Excuse me... did you just said that Ceausescu was a gentile or i am slow mentally!?
Indeed you did underline some facts that I did not consider. Is true that many teachers were brutal with the students, probably a big percentage if not most of them, but I was reffering at the quality of the information and not the quality of teachers. I think the information and the way education was structured then was more constructive, more science-focused and more efficient in creating professionals in all domains than it is now. Is true probably the history lessons were communist propaganda but today is no different. But no one can deny that a considerable part of the people who fled the country were very skilled in their domains and they did their education in communist times (doctors, plumbers, electricians, welders, architects, builders etc). Too bad people who studied in the education system after 1989 are not old enough to compare them with the ones who studied in the previous system well before 1989, like comparing their skills or professionalism or knowledge. That would be a good indicative about the quality of the system, But you are right many were abussed to learn by their teachers. I don't know to what extent the country leadership was to blame about this, but if they knew and did nothing, and they most likely knew, then indeed they are to blame for the teachers beating and abussing students to learn.Weassel said:The education system just like today was based on fear and manipulation, shaming kids and threatening them with beatings, yes in communism teacher beated the hell out of their students from a very young age if they didn't do their homework, or haven't learn the leasson etc.
I have stories from my father how he learned better then the teacher took his head and smashed against the table saying '' you see <insert name>, you can do better!''
Oh boy... let's not forget that every friend you made in school could be a ''special'' kid that was put there to search for people who are not loyal to the regime, forgot their name sadly.
You are right but here again I was comparing the strenght and quality of the army then with the army nowadays. I think nobody can deny that the army was destroyed after 1989. I remember someone was saying about the following president Iliescu saying `We are lowering the number of millitary personnel and artillery but we will modernize it`. Let's be honest nobody modernized anything after 1989, the country was forced to become western colony and buy obsolete and useless technology from the West. But I give you one example why the army was not neccesarily full of mentally ill people, since what you mentionned are only few particular cases. I know of someone who said that Ceausescu saw a film from China were the Chinese army literally torn apart and destroyed protesters of a massive protest that happened there and that he was considering this to be a good method of keeping people under control of protests are to happen. But as you probably know, it is generally accepted that in the 1989 coup the army stood with the people and not against them. As far as I heard there were foreign millitary activists present there who fired at people, as Inflorescence suggested. Was it an attempt to criminalize the army? If is true then I would say yes. Yet is iteresting to note that jews like Ion Iliescu and Gelu Voican Voiculescu were accused for crimes against humanity in the Revolution investigations that followed afterwards, and which are very conveniently still on hold for years.Weassel said:Ah yes the army... you know that... EVERYONE was allowed in the army right, including people with mental illnesses and other kind that should not be there, how many stories are there in the communism army with someone that had nasty mental illness, wait i remember a few:
There was someone who always did what others told him, i mean.... everything, more like a broken reflex, like his fellows told him to jump from the table he would do it, if he drive straight and someone told him to drive into a river he would do it, it was crazy.
Another one was someone with schizophrenia (dont remember) and he nearly killed another soldier because he walker around with the gun loaded into his chest and he didn't knew what he was doing, or how he pulled the pin of a grenade out of the random.
You are right here the money did go to the jewish international mafia, but the question is, what if he decided not to pay the debt at all? This could only end catastrophic for the country, like enforced embargos which would have collapsed the industry, probably war threats. Anyway is not even relevant to debate that starvation/rationalization was a crime and people were rightfully protesting in this regard, irrespective if Ceausescu was directly responsible for rationalization or not. The responsibles deserved to die for this `decision` alone as is not neccesary to starve a whole nation to pay a debt irrespective of how big it is. What I am not sure about if whether Ceausescu was fully behind this or not, as there is evidence that the Security was engineering all this.Weassel said:And with the external debts, yesss kingggg, pay money to kikes and starve your peopleee WOOO HOOO, Ceausescu sigma grindset i suppose.
The Alchemist7 said:True. I heard there was another failed coup attempt in 1985 or so. He might have been the one giving orders but I wonder to what extent was he really in knowledge of what was happening in the country. Even assuming that his intentions were evil, is difficult for only two people (his wife too) to have full control over absolutely everything since as you said he was surrounded by traitors. If is true that the population was starved without his knowledge or permission, then it would mean he was not the head of all the evil, but then if he ordered the rationalization, I wonder if he really wanted to remove it once the debt was paid, as he would have stated. Still the debt could have been paid in a longer amount of time and without starving the nation, whether he took the decission or not.Inflorescentia said:The revolution was clearly many years in the making and designed to be used as a cover story for the actual coup-d'etat. This says to me that Ceausescu was genuinely doing his the best for Romania but got defeated by a bunch of scheming house kikes and his own inability to establish trusting relationships with his staff.
"It is my desire that all my followers unite in a bond of unity, lest those who are without prevail against them." - Shaitan