Dunkirk is the most SHITTY Propaganda Film

One thing that REALLY got to me was the fact that it glorifies the elites. One of the main characters was this rich asshole who owned a Yacht who went to save the soldiers. Thing is England had a class divide (and still do), rich people considered themselves superior both morally and physically to the lower classes (soldiers). No rich person would ever risk their lives saving soldiers when the wealthy see the working class as the scum of the earth. I call the movie dumbkirk for making a rich guy the hero.

>inb4 communist

This has nothing to do with communism, ask any Englishmen if England has a class divide

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836
youtube.com/watch?v=e-BZylziBKI
youtube.com/watch?v=UrOZllbNarw
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>One thing that REALLY got to me was the fact that it glorifies the elites.
That's where I stopped reading, then I saged the thread.

>communist flag poster
Stopped reading right there

SPOILERS
The rich guy lost his son in the war dumbass, that's why he went.

Enjoy your ban then

>rich people
>ever losing family members in war
Wars are ALWAYS fought by the working classes. In real Dunkirk the rich stayed behind sipping tea and talking about how the war is a great Malthusian way to kill off the poor while the working class sailers actually saved the soldiers lives.

>No rich person would ever risk their lives saving soldiers when the wealthy see the working class as the scum of the earth
Got any statistics to back this up?

Real sorry OP we don't have a class divide. What we do have is fat fucks living in council houses claiming every benefit in the book saying theirs a divide, when in truth there isn't

I can't prove a negative. I know that no one who was wealthy actually fought in the war or had their kids fight in the war, and if they did join the military they were never a front-line private. Always some office position. This is evident by the lack of any sources to any wealthy soldier.

>Triarii
>They were the oldest and among the wealthiest men in the army and could afford high quality equipment. They wore heavy metal armor and carried large shields, their usual position being the third battle line. They were equipped with spears and were considered to be elite soldiers among the legion.

Well I don't know about today but DEFINENTLY pre 1950s. I still believe there is one today though since wealthy English consider non-wealthy English subhuman.

Yes we do have a class divide. Unfortunately even that's withering away until we are one amorphous consumerist blob with no other culture than McDonalds and Netflix. Class divides occur organiaclly because contrary to Marxist theory, people are different and much of that difference is predetermined biologically. We are not a tabula rasa. Some individuals are worth more than others.

So they literally didn't fight, they sat behind everyone else? HAHAHAHAHA

Bro, Macdonalds and Netflix is CLASS DIVIDE, the wealthy elite bougoiuse. Also yes maybe there is some "natural hierarchy" as some right-wingers put it. But why does one group get 99% of the resources since they are a bit better than everyone else.

Besides it's not like intelligence is passed down from generation to generation.

>I know that no one who was wealthy actually fought in the war or had their kids fight in the war, and if they did join the military they were never a front-line private
690 million people served in WW2, I'm gonna need to see some actual proof that not one of those people was wealthy.

Our lowest class is subhuman, just look up the Jeremy Kyle show

>nolan is a fucking hack
>water is wet

>Wars are ALWAYS fought by the working classes. In real Dunkirk the rich stayed behind sipping tea and talking about how the war is a great Malthusian way to kill off the poor while the working class sailers actually saved the soldiers lives.

Not true
bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836

>their usual position being the third battle line.
Yeah dude, they literally just sat around and watched not doing anything. The Roman Republic paid them to stand 20 feet away from their enemies and not fight.

That's exactly how it works.

Wars are ALWAYS fought by the working classes. In real Dunkirk the rich stayed behind sipping tea and talking about how the war is a great Malthusian way to kill off the poor while the working class sailers actually saved the soldiers lives

There was a draft you dumb fuck.

>Besides it's not like intelligence is passed down from generation to generation.
Except it is. You can influence it environmentally to varying degrees but there's a physical basis to it.

youtube.com/watch?v=e-BZylziBKI

forgot my comedy chevron to indicate quotation

Nothing propaganda about it.

Prove to me there was one wealthy soldier. Trying to prove there wasn't one is like trying to prove non of the soldiers were transgender, it's up to the one standing there is one to find it. How can i do a negative search, read the bio of every single fucking soldier and then say it?

So the men who formed the industrial revolution were subhuman, all those scientists like Newton and Hook were subhuman, Margaret Thatcher was subhuman?

I read that article too, and guess what. They say that the wealthy served in the army not fought in the army. John McCains son was in the war but he served in an office ordering poor people around

Sure buddy, capitalism totally sends the wealthy kids off to die

>draft
The draft is how they ensured only poor people got sent. By only selecting the poor. That's why you never hear any Senators or royalty getting drafted it's always factory workers and fishermen.

I just proved to you that Triarii were wealthier and higher class than an average legionnaire and they still fought in battle.

You have a scrawny dog in the fight, that's why you're being so disingenuous.

I really hate to use anecdotal but I find that's not true. My dad is MENSA IQ but I'm special needs and have several learning disabilities. My friend's dad is a rich corporate owner and he's in special education class as well. Intelligence maybe passed from mother/father to son often but no way will intelligence be passed down for 500 years which is how long these noble families last

It's literally all propaganda

They didn't fight, they were third which means they sat behind two rows of men.

4. The upper class got off lightly
Although the great majority of casualties in WW1 were from the working class, the social and political elite were hit disproportionately hard by WW1. Their sons provided the junior officers whose job it was to lead the way over the top and expose themselves to the greatest danger as an example to their men.
Some 12% of the British army's ordinary soldiers were killed during the war, compared with 17% of its officers. Eton alone lost more than 1,000 former pupils - 20% of those who served. UK wartime Prime Minister Herbert Asquith lost a son, while future Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law lost two. Anthony Eden lost two brothers, another brother of his was terribly wounded, and an uncle was captured.

>They didn't fight, they were third which means they sat behind two rows of men.
This is true

Ok I admit you are right there, but why only 20% serve? I thought all young men served yet only 20% at Eton?

George Joseph and S. Daniel Abraham.

It's just if all wars are created by the rich for their own enrichment why would they personally fight?

Maggie and Newton were far from poor, Maggie's dad owning a couple of stores and Newton's owning land, Newton was born in a manor (pic related) but you already know this as this is a bait thread.

Furthermore the is a difference between the scum class seen on Jeremy Kyle and working class people, but as a trend the lower class you are the uglier

>They didn't fight
Explain why they were in battle and did fight then?
Did you ever hear the saying "it comes down to the Triarii?" Not like you'd admit it even if you did, but the fact was that usually the light troops in front would defeat the enemy before the third line was ever needed.

If your argument is "rich people have never fought" then it's absolutely wrong. If your argument was "rich people are considered more important so didn't fight AS MUCH" you'd be onto something. But that's not your argument so that makes you retarded.

>armed men on the battlefield didn't take part in combat, they were they for decoration

Commies confirmed for pea-brained.

You just answered your own question.

>all wars are created by the rich for their own enrichment
Oh come off it. Let's say we get rid of the ruling class (as your ilk brutally did in France and Russia) you think it will be all smiles and roses? Aggression is human nature. People have in-group preferences. People will naturally form groups and given that resources are scarce, conflict will erupt over these resources between groups.

You have to understand Marxist Theory. Just because someone has wealth doesn't mean they aren't working/lower class. The wealthy/upper class are those who own the corporate state or in the Feudal times owned the land. Margaret Thatcher's dad owned two grocery stores. I like to compare myself to her since grandfather owned two grocery stores and despite being the richest person in the town he grew up in still liked to consider himself proletariat since he is still a victim of the police state, the military industrial complex, the legal industrial complex, the banking scams of wallstreet, the FED pumping prices up, and the economic drain of wealth of the capitalist class.

Even doctors and top notch lawyers are proletariet since they are not the rich. The rich are those who hire them.

What a fucking tryhard. Shitposts with the communist flag. Edgy 22 year old gaylord.
The quality of shitposts has gone down. Ppl like you are a dime a dozen now.

Except the rich don't care about wealth that much to actually serve in the war, and it's not like them serving in the war would add any effect to their wealth. It's much better to force proletariets to fight for you.

Sorry for flag change. Haven't been on for a while and was curious what the kekistani flag was

Bro, the ruling class NEVER gotten rid of. You see in France it was replaced with military dictators and crony capitalists. In Russia it was replaced with the Communist Inner Party members, each fighting for the enrichment of themselves.

Wars over resources are actually the dumbest idea ever because wars cost more in resources than they can obtain. Look at the Middle East war, all the oil they could possibly capture isn't enough with a 5% profit margin (profit margin of oil) to pay down the 6 TRILLION dollar debt that those wars cost.

At least i don't have the cringy Christian flag.

>>armed men on the battlefield didn't take part in combat, they were they for decoration

The Triarii were the last line of defense. Not the first or even the middle. This means they could run if things got bad. Or perhaps they would surrender. Or perhaps they would destroy the enemy once everyone else died.

In a war the best place to be is always in the rear with the gears.

So if a doctor works self-employed or is hired in a private or public hospital then he is proletariat, but if he later on makes his own hospital and hires other people he becomes a capitalist?

>Except the rich don't care about wealth that much to actually serve in the war, and it's not like them serving in the war would add any effect to their wealth
You're assuming that wealth is the only motivating factor for war. Given the examples that have been provided of rich fighting in war, that is obviously not the case.

>still arguing that armed men on the battlefield were decorations

Oh look... A rich kid arguing for communism! Where exactly are you from?

don't reply to posters who don't show their real location

You got it! I'm actually grateful for that because it seems like most people on the board consider anyone who doesn't work in a factory to be bougaise. Whenever i see "well if commies killed the bougaise doctors and lawyers how do they blah blah blah". Anyone who's not the corporate controllers are proles under Marxist theory.

Then what are the causes of war, ww1, what motivations would a country have to serve in that and want to win.

I'm far from rich. And it doesn't really matter where I'm from since people everywhere are the same (either proles or bourgs). And even if i was rich again it's not the "rich" who are the problem, no one considers lottery winners the source of our economic mess. It's the capitalists those who constantly suck resources from society.

>

I'll show the flag if you want.

Never used the word decorations

>Literally posting under a commie flag
>"In-inb4 c-communism"

Whew

do poor people own boats big enough to transport a lot of troops? wouldnt the owners of the biggest boats be able to carry more and thus be more heroic? do poor people own boats? are men trained in navigating usually poor or wealthy?

Why are you a hater of people that are better than you?

It does matter where you are from when you are claiming you know about my country

So if a man were to use automation to create a large business and hire no one, he would remain a proletariat?

>ww1
It was a fairly pointless war, though hardly indicative of all wars.

>see title
>click
>see flag
welp, it's decided, im going to go watch it in theaters instead of waiting for Redbox

fuck you commie faggot

>rich people
>exempt from the draft
LMAO is Marxist "history" as fake and empirically wrong as marxist "economics"?

Not an argument

You can be a common sense capitalist and agree with what I'm saying.

Poor people actually do own boats, many fisherman would pool their money to rent big fishermen boats. I hate rich since they are inferior to me morally

Alright, im from Canada, specifically Newfoundland which until 1953 was British land.

>people everywhere are the same (either proles or bourgs)

people who are smarter, faster, stronger, more socially adept are not the same as fat, lazy, shiftless, inarticulate. Jobs that pay more go to people who are able to do them. Retards don't write novels or build bridges.

That's what you're essentially implying when you say the Triarii didn't fight, when there have been recorded instances of Triarii fighting under the command of Scipio.

Explain to me why you would feed, house and equip men who quote, "didn't fight." What logical reason is there to give men free things and have them stand on a battlefield?

A

FUCKING

LEAF

sage and ignore.

>flag

lol I think most commies just envision rich people to be evil soulless porky memes, despite their higher intelligence and more moral behavior

Ok that's where the laws are getting drawn. We're going to have to rechange definitions. IF in the future owning automative technology becomes common for all then NO, if in the future automation becomes something only the rich have then I'd still have to say they were bourgoise. This is a tough one since Marx never lived to see automation, only semi-factory automation which still required people

It defends Statism btw

Name a rich person who was draft. Bush's, Trumps, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, NEVER SERVED. Even Will Hunting said it

In fact in Lincolns day you could literally pay 300 to escape the war

youtube.com/watch?v=UrOZllbNarw

Neither is your argument

The actual guy the boat character was based off of was 2nd lieutenant on the titanic or some shit, he had remorse his entire life

>One of the main characters was this rich asshole who owned a Yacht who went to save the soldiers
>Poor people actually do own boats

Which is it

>I hate rich since they are inferior to me morally
actually they are by far superior since they have contributed jobs and much more valuable labor to the economy than sub-120 IQ swine like you

plus ric people are much more charitable with their money

Explains it all

They've been pushing monarchy / divine right to lead pretty hard recently.

Probably to prep the next gen to be good serfs.

Enjoy your ban

>build bridges
>write novels
How come writers and bridge builders are poor then? Except of course for a few elite novelists.

The rich are not better, they got lucky

Historically accurate version

Remorse for what?

Many poor fishermen used their fishing boats to save soldiers

>contributed jobs
Didn't know wage-slavery was good, well, you never learn younger!

Yep, after automation serfs is all citizens will be

I don't care about convincing you of anything except for the fact that you're not welcome here and most people find your Nazi-tier religion to be abhorrent and retarded

>it defends statism
you know, libertarians are quite literally statists

All of those people dying, he probably believed he should have done more to save passengers.

>This is a tough one since Marx never lived to see automation, only semi-factory automation which still required people
But he predicted that the technology would come about, did he not?

>Didn't know wage-slavery was good
Wage-slavery is a spook

So you judge the poor fisherman on his actions: saving soldiers

But you judge the "rich" Yachtman on how rich he is and not his actions: saving soldiers

Makes sense.

>never knew wage slavery was good
Yeah, it's what made the US the richest country on earth for almost the entire 20th century

You Marxist swine with your self-contradictory and empirically indefensible "theories" and worldviews disgust me.

>I hate rich since they are inferior to me morally

Today I learned poorfags can think of themselves as being virtuous simply by being poor. Is everyone who has more than you evil? Are people who have less than you morally better?

I get how this works. You think people have money because they are evil. This lets you feel like you deserve what they have by virtue of being poorer, thus not evil. The lie is where you pretend that you can do what a rich person does. Bill Gates had the idea to put a computer in every home and office. Can you do that? You have to explain how either you CAN do that, or that evilness is somehow a necessary ingredient in order to do that. Then you have to ignore his philanthropy. Basically you have to ignore a lot of reality in order to feel like you should have what people better than you have earned. The alternative is to be a better person tomorrow than you are today and we all know there's no fucking way you will do that.

This thread is the most SHITTY commie bait

SAGE

>rich asshole who owned a Yacht
You have no basis for calling him an asshole. I also thought Dunkirk glorified the soldiers just as much, if not more than, the yacht-owners. People are complex, and our loyalties extend far beyond class lines.

Besides, the British (unfortunately) allied with the Soviet Union. You should be more grateful for their sacrifices you little shit.

>after the computer is invented, wHERE WILL ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WERE DOING THE CALCULATIONS BY HAND AT NASA WORK?!?!?!?!?

>once the automatic harvester is invented WELL ALL BE SERFS THERE WILL BE NO JOBS LEFT

>better transition to communism (which slows down your economy or causes democides in every real world application of it), it's the only way!

what a joke.

Jeremy kyle is middle class 8D

You can see the lowest in Blackpool, they all wear pyjamas in the shopping centre and high street

WE GET IT OP. We saw through the scam a long time ago. No wonder they're trying to shut down Peterson's shit.

>that graph
I don't understand it is it saying that wages have mostly kept up?

> don't care about convincing you of anything except for the fact that you're not welcome here and most people find your Nazi-tier religion to be abhorrent and retarded
No one cares about your ancap tier religion, and only nutjobs think it will ever come back. Keynesianism is the future.

Soldiers are working class, he was wealthy, what did he give a rats ass about them?

Because he got rich making others poor, so it was his fault they were there in the first place

I don't know enough to talk about automation and Marxist theory. I know he mentioned how increases in efficiency made life of the worker more hellish since it destroyed jobs. Communism is good since jobs are only needed for productivity and not for the sake of jobs themselives. But wageslavery is real

Actually it was the spirit of industry that made America rich. Jobs that actually did productive things. Rich people jobs make the lives of the 1% better but don't build nations. Your capitalist world view. Capitalists are unempathetic and disgust me.

>One of the main characters was this rich asshole who owned a Yacht

The character was middle class and the boat was hardly extravagant

Fuck off commie it's a great movie

Bill Gates never put a computer in everyones home. It was the employees he hired that did. That could easily have been done without giving one idiot 87 BILLION dollars. The state could do it and keep the 87 billion in profits for say the proletariet. You are poor not because of laziness but because of capitalism itself

You're a terrible troll

>the USSR
They fought against communism more than anyone by sending Trotskyists to the Gulags. Listen, the Yacht owner was shown to be a good guy when in reality the rich are only loyal to the rich.

Every damn time.
Sage.

>I'm sure once cars are invented, horses will find other jobs, hehehehehe

>Jordan Peterson
>calls the proletariet losers
>literally calling 95% of his students "losers"

What a fucking joke

>capitalists are unempathetic and disgust me.

literally displayed no empathy for anyone and thinks everyone with $1 more than him is evil and should be punished.

The Triarii also had to have been veterans of the lower rank first with X years of experience.

>But wageslavery is real
Nah. If someone doesn't want to work for a wage they are free to work self-employed, in a coop, in a commune, or for commission.

>Enjoy your ban then

>Thinking that people actually get banned for that.

Thinking

My dad runs a law firm and even that would be costly. We're saving up for a Yacht but that boat would still do a toll, sort of like a middle class family buying a car. Boats are very expensive.

It was garbage.

Enjoy your ban

He didnt say that 20% served, but 20% of those from Eton who served died.

Also not all young men served, Britain introduced draft pretty late in the WWI.

You uneducated communist nigger.

>Soldiers are working class, he was wealthy, what did he give a rats ass about them?
>tfw commies are so removed from humanity that they don't understand the concept of empathy anymore

I have empathy to the poor, do rich people?

I thought you said they were the wealthy?

Except you can't. You see in the year 1700 you could start your own business, now you can't because Megaindustries dominate the marketplace.

Saging is against the rules.

20% from Eton died, yet 1/3 of soldiers died. HMMMM wonder what happened to that 13% difference.

Also Britain introduced a draft immedietly in ww2

I have empathy, i can't imagine the ruling calsses do.

>One of the main characters was this rich asshole who owned a Yacht who went to save the soldiers.

Are you aware of the fact that this actually happened?