Meeting A Survivalist - Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends - BBC Brit - BBC 

Yeah he was pretty grounded and nice, especially compared to the some of the racists they come across later in the doc - the Aryan Ranch dude and the holocaust denier at the store. He and the hippie "Hobbit hole" guy were both very friendly, just different.

Well, the episode I saw showed him as a typically deluded fool

@@sexobscura Seems you must have the delusion then, hope you get well soon.

Seemed a good guy. And spoke very well. Seemed he was primarily out there for tax avoidance reasons rather than doomsday prepping.

Yeah, I thought the same especially after the fact the Colonel warns Louis about meeting him.

😅 Louis' trying to talk some sense into him, and the guy just loads his gun.

Underrated comment

Nah, louis doesn’t encapsulate the brexit dunce caps who are enforcing racist policies like letting brown people freeze in the winter in inadequate housing.

2020 its going down

@@bennyhill5938 shit man you might be right

Damn...

Its 2020

Benny Hill Ironically, it’s the closest we’ve come yet.

How old are you? Because for the longest time people were friends with those who they staunchly disagreed with on certain issues.

KGATLW91 Yes I fully understand that, it’s rarely portrayed this way in the media though which is what makes this interesting. The media seem more concerned with creating conflict and opposing ideas.

@ISledgehammerI I was expecting an update from someone.... I got exactly that. RIP his family and him. They died honorably in the war.

@@chavax7724 Mike is still alive. Louis interviewed him in recent documentary via skype and he is doing well but the Almost Heaven community fell apart soon after Theroux left.

Exactly my thoughts ….

kinda does make them seen crazy as they been saying since before 2000

@@fuzzman9298 🍿

Yep. Predictions a bit off but his word is pretty true.

@@fuzzman9298 They're not crazy, they're just ahead of the curve

​@Mosley Shoahs It's possible to be a calm, intelligent and articulate person and yet believe in wrong things. The idea that the UN was going to take over the United States was silly, and in fact the US government has substantially more financial and political control over the UN than the UN could ever exercise over the US. Of course, if the media in its quest for ratings has to choose between "well-spoken person living a relatively normal life with strange beliefs" and "crazy idiot who thinks aliens want to penetrate his anus and the CIA is in the hands of Marxist-Leninists," their choice is generally going to be the latter.

@Mosley Shoahs There is a difference between conspiratorial thinking and the notion that a private press will express the interests of those who own the means of production in a capitalist society. As Marx noted, "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it." And as Lenin put it, "For the bourgeoisie, freedom of the press meant freedom for the rich to publish and for the capitalists to control the newspapers, a practice which in all countries, including even the freest, produced a corrupt press." The fact you use the term "manufacturers consent" shows once more how fascists try to appropriate the language of the left for reactionary purposes, considering it is a clear reference to the book "Manufacturing Consent" by Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, neither of whom could be considered belonging to the right. There are also numerous books by Marxists or semi-Marxist authors such as "Inventing Reality" by Michael Parenti which go into the role of the media under capitalism in maintaining the domination of the capitalist system. The idea that there is a Marxist "infiltration" "into the various layers of Government" is nonsense. If it's so "provable," feel free to provide an example. I see no reason not to regard it as much of a tinfoil conspiracy theory as alien abductions.

@Mosley Shoahs I've read a fair bit of Mein Kampf, it's largely just rantings and Hitler's desire to destroy Marxism (e.g. complaining how democracy leads to Marxism, which in a sense is true insofar as the working-class, the most numerous class in modern society, is compelled to form a separate workers' party and fight for its interests via legal means, only being compelled into resorting to force when the bourgeoisie throws its much-vaunted "free elections" overboard and resorts to fascism. Marxists do not agree that "the state" controls the media. The state serves a particular ruling class. It is this class which, through its control of the means of production, establishes the legal and cultural basis for its domination over other classes (thus the rise of the bourgeois state, bourgeois ideology, etc.) The point about being a reactionary is that one opines for a system that is either dying or dead. As Marx and Engels noted in the Manifesto, "The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature." The aforementioned quote describes an objective process of capitalist development, however much one tries to turn back the clock, it cannot be done. You cannot restore feudalism or slavery. You can indeed only go forward from capitalism to socialism. That is why Lenin stated, "Marxism has won its historic significance as the ideology of the revolutionary proletariat because, far from rejecting the most valuable achievements of the bourgeois epoch, it has, on the contrary, assimilated and refashioned everything of value in the more than two thousand years of the development of human thought and culture." In your two replies you mention the "intersectional left," "neo-Marxism" and "cultural Marxism," without explaining how they are actually Marxism. In fact, you can't seem to provide any example of Marxism having "universal support" from the bourgeoisie, you have to "qualify" this "Marxism" by adding something else to it, something that allows you to present non-Marxist ideologies and policies as "Marxism." The Fabian Society was founded by reformist socialists who combated the influence of Marxism in the British labor movement. Even in the case of the Webbs and Shaw, who eventually became admirers of the USSR, Shaw retained his idiosyncratic views (e.g. a somewhat grudging admiration for Mussolini and Hitler) while the Webbs actually admitted at the end of their lives that they had become *closer* to Marxism as a result of the experience of the USSR, i.e. they had moved *away* (to some extent, anyway) from their earlier non-Marxist, Fabian views. Alas, the bulk of the Fabians did not follow the Webbs' example and instead helped justify the Cold War, Britain's entry into NATO, etc. in the name of allying with US imperialism against "Communist totalitarianism." I could also add that Engels repeatedly denounced the Fabian Society (Marx wasn't alive at the time), not to mention British Marxists from the 1890s onward. I don't see how a policy of importing cheap migrant labor from Poland and whatnot has anything to do with Marxism. It seems to be bourgeois economics at work. I also don't see how, say, "teaching 4 year olds to masturbate" has anything to do with Marx's theory of historical materialism. You are taking cultural policies and labeling them "Marxist" because "Marxism" is considered a dirty word. The "Marxist infiltration" you mention in the United States concerned Soviet spies who did things like give atomic secrets and confidential diplomatic information to the USSR. Nothing about "critical theorists," infiltration of schools, promotion of Fabianism (why crypto-Marxists would be promoting that rather than Marxism I'll leave it for you to explain), et cetera. Most neoconservatives had backgrounds either in anti-communist social-democratic or liberal politics. Irving Kristol, the most prominent neoconservative with a Trotskyist background, had only dabbled in Trot politics for a few years as a young man. He spent decades as a liberal, then moved further right in the 70s. Also, given that neoconservatives were bitterly hostile to the USSR and accused the Democratic Party of "appeasement," what is their relevance in the context of a supposed Soviet-sponsored "Marxist infiltration" of the US? In fact, what is "Marxist" about neoconservative ideology at all? MLK considered himself a socialist and, to his credit, criticized anti-communism as an irrational ideology, but as a Christian minister he found multiple things objectionable about Marxism. As for Malcolm X, he was indeed moving closer to Marxism in his last years after breaking with the Nation of Islam, and he certainly wasn't the type of person to mask his beliefs. But again, what has this to do with "Marxist infiltration"? MLK studied socialist texts on his own accord, and one of his influences was Edward Bellamy (an opponent of Marxism whose own socialist society depicted in "Looking Backward" was criticized by the British Marxist William Morris.)

@Mosley Shoahs It is not only Marxists who "directly opposed everything [Hitler] stood for," I don't think you can find a single example of Hitler's ties to even non-Marxian varieties of socialism. Nazi "socialism" arose amid the popularity of the SPD and KPD, i.e. amid the general popularity of parties that were avowedly aiming to build a socialist society. The Nazis were obliged to call their doctrine "socialist" for demagogic purposes. Compare this to Marx and Engels who acknowledged their debt to Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, and other early socialist thinkers. While the Fabians ostensibly had the end goal of socialism in mind, in practice they touted capitalist states carrying out such mundane activities as handling mail and financing welfare measures as "proof" of the victorious march of socialism. They essentially served to prettify the capitalist state, which is why when the Labour Party actually entered office it continued Britain's repressive policy in the colonies and did not challenge capitalism at home. For an example of Fabian/Labour support for colonialism see for instance "The Crisis of Britain and the British Empire" by British Communist R. Palme Dutt (here's a link: archive.org/details/crisisbritainbritishempiredutt1957 ) and for an example of the Labour Party's class-collaborationism from 1945 onward see "Right-Wing Labour: Theory and Practice" by another British Communist named Emile Burns (here's a link to that: archive.org/details/rightwinglabourburns ) I will leave it for supporters of the "intersectional left" (however you define it) to argue against your specific arguments aimed against them. However, I do take issue with your claim that "the label of Marxism is still valid. The goal is the same. . ." Not only because "the goal" isn't necessarily the same ("socialism" in the heads of a great many people today is nothing more than public health care and higher taxes), and not only because "the goal" clearly predated Marx and Engels (who considered Thomas More to be just about the earliest forerunner of socialist/communist thought), but because you simply cannot replace the proletariat in Marx's analysis of capitalism with, say, homosexuals. Homosexuals are not a class, there is no heterosexual mode of production. There is no logical reason to call this "Marxism" except, as I said, for demagogic purposes. Mussolini became an opponent of Marxism, suppressing Marxists in Italy and allying with Hitler in his war against the USSR. I do not see what was "Marxist" about his thinking during his fascist years, and I doubt you can provide examples. Ardent apologists of capitalism like Winston Churchill and Ludwig Von Mises openly praised fascism in the 1920s as providing an "antidote" and "emergency makeshift" against the left, and Churchill even told Mussolini that if he himself were Italian he would have certainly voted Fascist. As for the notion that "Everyone had moved on from Marx by the beginning of the 20th century," this requires ignoring numerous prominent individuals and communist parties during that century, not to mention entire countries. To take the case of Britain, do you think (to cite just two well-known examples) Harry Pollitt and Christopher Hill "moved on from Marx"? I consider myself a Marxist, yes. Marxist-Leninist, to be exact (as you may have surmised from my quoting of Lenin.) As for your second reply, while capitalism today is obviously not identical to capitalism in the 19th century, I don't see how it makes Marx's views "irrelevant." What you've said (that bankers can dictate policy, that the ruling class "are" the state, that the media has the power to make or unmake political careers, that "the same people are effectively above the law," etc.) applied in the 19th century as well. To give you an example of how Marx's analysis did not magically cease relevance circa 1900, there is an analysis of the British state made back in the 1950s by two British Marxists, chapter XVII of which deals with the media: archive.org/details/britishstateharveyhood

@Mosley Shoahs You've explicitly stated that you adhere to "National Socialism," and earlier stated that "Mussolini came to understand that traditional Marxism would not work in Italy, because the country was not properly industrialised. It would take decades in order for the necessary conditions to arise." The latter clearly implies that Mussolini maintained some of his "Marxist" positions, but your statement is obvious nonsense given that Italy developed a powerful communist movement after WWI, inspired by the October Revolution in semi-feudal Russia. Mussolini's opposition to Marxism wasn't because it "would not work in Italy," it was because he became a renegade from the socialist movement and an anti-communist. You still haven't explained how Marx's critique of capitalism "was present in fascism" (whether its Nazi, Mussolini, or Mosleyite varieties.) Already in the Communist Manifesto Marx ridiculed what he referred to as "feudal socialism," the attacking of capitalism from a reactionary position idealizing pre-capitalist society and seeking the restoration of "traditional" authorities (the church, etc.) Merely claiming to oppose capitalism because it is "parasitic" does not make one a Marxist. Even the American slaveowners in the lead up to the Civil War tried to win over the working-class of the North by "criticizing" capitalism from their own pro-slavery position. The notion that socialism and communism "result in exactly the same monopoly" as capitalism is obvious nonsense. Where was the Soviet equivalent to the corporations of Rockefeller, Morgan, Krupp, I.G. Farben, British Petroleum, etc.? Do you seriously think major capitalists today don't operate their own publications? What about Bloomberg News, to give one example? Or Jeff Bezos' ownership of the Washington Post? The fact you champion Henry Ford, who you admit belonged to "big business" and whose own command of capital allowed him to finance his own periodical in an effort to shape public opinion in a pro-capitalist direction (while scapegoating Jews and the left), is yet another indication of how demagogic your "anti-capitalist" rhetoric is. As for your parting words, I will simply note that Marxists are well aware, as I've stated previously, that the bourgeoisie moves ever closer to fascism amid ever worsening crises of capitalism and the increasingly dysfunctional nature of bourgeois democracy. Bickering between the capitalists of Western Europe (which the EU was formed in an ultimately doomed effort to resolve) will not stem off said crises, nor will the election of a hedonistic landlord in the US. You seem to know this, which is why you get giddy at the prospect of abolishing all pretenses of democracy and carrying out the mass murder of workers. You've already admitted that you use the term "Marxism" to refer to non-Marxist (or even anti-Marxist) groups and concepts simply for purposes of demagogy. By contrast, as Marx and Engels wrote, "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims." Unlike fascists with their occasional "revolutionary," "anti-capitalist," "socialist," etc. pretensions, we have no need to hide our world outlook. So long as antagonistic classes exist in society (which no amount of "Third Position" rhetoric can cover up), so will the struggle for socialism and communism.

He even sounds like Dutch, a bit lol

He's got a plan all you need to have trust and faith!

didnt expect to see you here lol

You vil own nosink! *slams speech podium with fringe flicking over head* And you vil be happy!

Luke Shackleton do you still think so now 😕 he is talking truth

Dro Yayo You're about to believe a man that has been wrong for 18 years and still counting?

Arenos Karlaen So he ain't talking truth about the NWO ?

Totally. I respect anyone who actually practices what they preach and doesn't harm others in their beliefs. Actually self-reliant.

misguided about The NWO 0:22 . Hardly...

He made a program last week where looked back on this episode where he spoke to Mike it's on bbc iplayer

@@thomassaunders7914 Big thanks!

you're talking in your sleep again

you can't trust it that's for sure. But who needs trust when you're chipping in for the electric supply, drinking water, sewage... it's all either there or not. No trust necessary. As for the savage wars, subsiidies to petrolium business... well that's what voting and protesting, organizing is for. Very effective :) Look at women, at minorities. at our ancestors who organized the constitution, the public services for themselves, Habeas Corpus, the courts, overthrew the monarchies... :)

Amen brother.

He did a follow up on this in book form. It's called Louis Theroux: The Call of the Weird where he visits with several stories covered in Weird Weekends. Mike's distrust of the government led him and a buddy to board up the windows of Mike's house, while they sat there peering out, rifles in hand, waiting for the FBI or the ATF to arrive. Chacha left him because it got a bit too crazy for her, leading Mike to abandon his lifestyle in order to get back with her. He reluctantly got back on the grid, so to speak, and was working as a truck driver in the Las Vegas area when Louis caught up with him. This was in 2004, though, so god knows what he's doing now.

@@awaken9106 very true my friend, I've been stocking up guns and ammo since my senior year of highschool. I've even created side hustles that pay me more than my day job doing simple labor most people are to lazy to do. Cash is king for free men.

Maurice Piasecki besides them being batshit crazy

BOWLING FOR BEHAVE!

AHAHAHAAHAHAAA HO-LEE SHIT!

Tommy 1 C. Come on now dude are you serious?! What war are you trying to start? A race war? Gender war? Social war?

beam john I don't respond to those who use "Dude" or "Bro", like I stated, the "Educated" of what is happening are prepared.. Go about your business sir, my business doesn't concern nor affiliate with others like yourself, good day😔

beam john Those wars have already started. That's how blind you are. This is America. The real ear is the all-out war, like this guy said. Why else have big guns??

@@forwarddrive4066 go to college you fucking idiot

He hasn't. Don't worry. There's no public roads that lead to survivalist houses.

Thats a cop out.

@@jasonvoorhees6152 How?

Cool

ShaneyBot so, there is an all out war going on right now? Didnt know that.

ShaneyBot You're way off as well buddy

+gavi deem Lol good job Sherlock you've cracked the case

19

Councilman Les Wynan Don’t you mean the other one?

Andreas683 Netflix

Thanks but i bet its not on Finnish Netflix though. I cancelled Netflix several years ago due to there were only shit on it.

Type the episode name into Google and watch!!! simples...

piratebay

Still on Netflix.

I saw the episode. They thought that U.N. peacekeeping forces were the NWO army in disguise and that one day, a big coup would take place where these troops would be deployed all throughout the USA.

@Councilman Les Wynan Ha! That's right - we can also munch on our rotting "freedom fries" while you can enjoy another school shooting in your drug riddled, over crowded prison shithole of a nation. And "have a nice day..." *LOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

@@AA-hb1rs So sorry your delicate American sensibilities are wounded...

@@AA-hb1rs So sorry your delicate 'European' sensibilities are wounded...

Wow Galaxy brain point. Judging from your last name, perhaps a portion of your ancestors did the same thing.

@@alexluchtlucht3537 DEATH TO AMERIKA

Hint: bodily fluids . . .

cringe

Lol, they have tanks you fucking idiot. Good luck with you and your diabetic uncle armed with assault rifles winning against the army.

yup

Now don't know. But at the time of filming, this particular scene is in Idaho.