The Greatest, Most Relevant Speech Ever

smartknowledgeu's picture

Every now and then, it is good to refresh knowledge of what is truly important in life. So it’s time to post “The Greatest Speech Ever” by Charlie Chaplin. Charlie Chaplin was known as the greatest silent actor ever. The most powerful excerpts from his speech, still very relevant today, in my opinion, are below:


"And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men’s souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost."


"To those who can hear me, I say - do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed - the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish."


And particularly relevant, is the following, as it applies to nearly all world leaders today and it should serve to awaken us to the knowledge that divided we will fall to the brutal immorality of today's banking/government/military complex, but united, we have the power to change our futures for the better:


"You the people have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness. You the people have the power to make life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then in the name of democracy let’s use that power – let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age and security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie. They do not fulfill their promise, they never will. "




Here is more about Charlie Chaplin, courtesy of Wikipedia:


Chaplin arrived in Los Angeles, home of the Keystone studio, in early December 1913. The 1940s saw Chaplin face a series of controversies, both in his work and his personal life, which changed his fortunes and severely affected his popularity in America. The first of these was a new boldness in expressing his political beliefs. Deeply disturbed by the surge of militaristic nationalism in 1930s world politics, Chaplin found that he could not keep these issues out of his work: "How could I throw myself into feminine whimsy or think of romance or the problems of love when madness was being stirred up by a hideous grotesque, Adolf Hitler?”

He chose to make The Great Dictator – a "satirical attack on fascism" and his "most overtly political film". There were strong parallels between Chaplin and the German dictator, having been born four days apart and raised in similar circumstances. It was widely noted that Hitler wore the same toothbrush moustache as the Tramp, and it was this physical resemblance that formed the basis of Chaplin's story. Chaplin spent two years developing the script and began filming in September 1939. He had submitted to using spoken dialogue, partly out of acceptance that he had no other choice but also because he recognised it as a better method for delivering a political message. Making a comedy about Hitler was seen as highly controversial, but Chaplin's financial independence allowed him to take the risk. "I was determined to go ahead," he later wrote, "for Hitler must be laughed at." Chaplin replaced the Tramp (while wearing similar attire) with "A Jewish Barber", a reference to the Nazi party's belief that the star was a Jew. In a dual performance he also plays the dictator "Adenoid Hynkel", a parody of Hitler which Maland sees as revealing the "megalomania, narcissism, compulsion to dominate, and disregard for human life" of the German dictator.

The Great Dictator spent a year in production, and was released in October 1940. There was a vast amount of publicity around the film, with a critic for the New York Times calling it "the most eagerly awaited picture of the year", and it was one of the biggest money-makers of the era. The response from critics was less enthusiastic. Although most agreed that it was a brave and worthy film, many considered the ending inappropriate. Chaplin concluded the film with a six-minute speech in which he looked straight at the camera and professed his personal beliefs. The monologue drew significant debate for its overt preaching and continues to attract attention to this day. Maland has identified it as triggering Chaplin's decline in popularity, and writes, "Henceforth, no movie fan would ever be able to separate the dimension of politics from the star image of Charles Spencer Chaplin." The Great Dictator received five Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay and Best Actor.

Chaplin decided to hold the world premiere of his film Limelight in London, since it was the setting of the film. As he left Los Angeles, Chaplin expressed a premonition that he would not be returning. At New York, he boarded the RMS Queen Elizabeth with his family on 18 September 1952. The next day, Attorney General James P. McGranery revoked Chaplin's re-entry permit and stated that he would have to submit to an interview concerning his political views and moral behaviour in order to re-enter the US. US Congressman John E. Rankin of Mississippi told the House in June 1947:


"[Chaplin] has refused to become an American citizen. His very life in Hollywood is detrimental to the moral fabric of America. [If he is deported] ... his loathsome pictures can be kept from before the eyes of the American youth. He should be deported and gotten rid of at once."



What is remarkable about the above is that Chaplin’s speech about fascism in The Great Dictator nearly 75 years ago is as relevant today, if not more relevant, as it was back then. In addition, as Chaplin was demonized for telling the truth back then, administrations worldwide today, like the current White House administration, are relentlessly demonizing and persecuting truth tellers as well, after deceitfully pledging to protect them. It is for these reasons, in an Orwellian age when telling the truth is a revolutionary act, that we must spread "The Greatest Speech Ever" far and wide.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
New American Revolution's picture

Nice.  Good.  Liberty, he's right.  But the greatest and most relevant speech ever given was Washington's Farewell Address to the Nation, on September 19th, 1796.  The most significant passage comes about half way through when Washington explains the key to Liberty, or the rule of the people over their government.   And that is to never outsource, or usurp, the powers of the (people) Congress to any group or agency, for in Washington's words these powers will always end up in the hands of, "cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men", and that, "this is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

With all due respect to Mr. Chaplin, in both service to his country and all mankind with an eye towards the worlds greatest and most relevant speech, George Washington has him bested, and handily at that.

Son of Captain Nemo's picture

A prophetic and awesome speech in many ways.

And what happened to him in Hollywood is no different than many of the best motion picture directors and actors through the decades since that were equally brilliant in their moral message to an audience in 1940 just like in 2013 that didn't want to hear unpleasant truths not only about there enemy but about themselves.

This just proves that the brain washed masses in this Country have changed very little and are among the easiest to control.

From another luminary who ranks up at the top with Carlin's any day.


ToNYC's picture

Unite yourself and you'll have all you need to survive and thrive.

X86BSD's picture

I don't think there are enough negative posts about Chaplin yet. So I'll mention that he was also a Freemason. Let the demonic name calling begin! Heh.

honestann's picture

When I read the comments, all I can do is shake my head.  Not that some don't contain bits of wisdom and truth, but all seem to accept the premises that inevidably lead to authoritarianism, plus worship and rule of blatant fictions.

Obviously, most of the smartest humans on this planet don't realize they can't fight their way out of a non-existent wet paper bag if they accept the premises of the predators and wordsmiths who establish the ruling hologram of fiction (the wet paper bag).

What am I talking about?  Hundreds if not thousands of the most important topics that ZH posters spend millions of hours discussing, promoting and ranting about.  But just to give a taste, let's be clear.  Every so-called "country" is a fiction.  Every so-called "government" is a fiction.  Every so-called "leader" and "official" is a fiction.  Every so-called "law", "act", "statute" and "regulation" is a fiction.  ALL of them.  None of them exist.  Period.

This should be quite obvious and clear, but humans are so completely incapable of being honest today, even when they realize their mistake, they are unable or unwilling to reconsider their ways of thinking.  Perhaps they realize they'd essentially have to start over from where they were as 3 or 4 year olds, and work through most topics they've already been through, and chosen sides in.  Or perhaps overwhelmingly corrupted brains are literally incapable of valid operation once firmly programmed with endless fiction, nonsense and contradiction.

I've stepped through some of these simple cases very slow and methodically with people several times.  They run like jack rabbits when they realize how completely snookered they've been all their lives, incapable or unwilling to face the significance and horror of seeing through the nonsense and fictions.  Or they are honest enough to say something like, "well, technically true, but we just can't function without accepting these concepts as they are accepted by everyone else today", but not honest enough to adopt sanity themselves.  They just can't stand to live without "SantaClaus", the "ToothFairy", the "government", the "president" and endless other predator-backed fictions who claim ownership of their bodies, their time, their efforts, their actions, their kids, their property, their savings and their entire lives.

I can't tell exactly where good old Charlie Chaplin was coming from, but he is certainly correct to advocate "benevolent individualism" and "honesty" to whatever extent he actually does.  The number of individuals I talk to who even vaguely understand this state of being has fallen dramatically during my not terribly long lifetime.  And the number of individual who are even capable of thinking in terms of individuals has seemingly fallen to near zero, even among individuals who label themselves "anarchists", "libertarians" and "individualists".

This is sad, because "sane valid honest thinking" is not complex.  Simply refusing to treat fictions as real goes a long way towards restoring sanity.  But the fictional forces pushing against such "straight thinking" are numerous, so most individuals are in a bit of a "self-fulfilling, self-reinforcing delusion".  They can't get sane until they stop treating fictions as real, but they're overwhelming trapped into their insane thinking processes by those fictions.  It's like they can't get rid of them until after they've gotten rid of them... or something like that.  I can't be inside the minds of others to experience their distress and difficulty, so I can't be entirely sure how the barriers to sane thinking work.

In case you haven't read my attempts at exposing this problem before, I'll give one example.  If 30 people meet somewhere, hold conversations, then write and sign a document that claims to create a "company" or a "nation", nothing pops into existence.  Nothing was created.  There is nothing in existence AFTER their actions that did not exist BEFORE their actions.  The only thing new at all are configurations in their brains, which they might call "SugarHighBakery", or "Utah", or "UnitedStatesOfAmerica", or "IntergalacticEmpireOfDweebs", or whatever.

To be sure, these people may take different actions after their meetings than they would have before their meeting.  And they will be doing so on the basis of those new configurations in their brains.  But there is no actual "company" or "nation" that popped into existence when they signed on the dotted line.  Nothing existential changed at all... except slight changes in the neural content of their brains.

Long ago, before humans were as completely delusional as they are today, many people understood this distinction between "real" and "fiction".  Which is why fundamental law for hundreds of years has labeled all organizations like "company" and "government" to be "fictitious entities".  Fictitious.  Get it?  Sigh.  I guess not.

Even if this simple expose is insufficient, any slightly sane individuals should realize that any 30 or 300 people who sit in rooms in Philadelphia or Berlin or Netherlands, and sign a document, do not have any basis whatsoever to obligate millions or billions of other people to anything whatsoever.  Not then, and certainly not 250 years later!

This should be self-evident.  But most individual humans these days have been programmed to accept and defend such extreme levels of insanity, that they don't even realize the inherent self-contradiction, impossibility and insanity of claiming that groups of 30 or 300 (or any other number) individuals can obligate endless others across endless time and space.  They do not even recognize that endless groups of individuals can create and sign documents too, which would undoubtedly contradict each other in a great many ways.

Yet here we are, in the "high-tech computer age", and virtually all individual humans are fundamentally and massively insane.  Most individuals who design high tech goodies are just as insane about every topic, even as they manage to focus on real transistors, resistors, diodes, gates, SSI, MSI, LSI, xyzLSI circuits and fancy software at work.

I am quite sure most people who post messages on ZH have physically capable brains, and are in principle capable of impressive intellectual feats.  And a few of these folks are "off the charts brilliant".  But it appears that nobody realizes that humans cannot build viable mental models to understand the nature of reality, or devise appropriate forms of human interactions, if their models are chock full of fictional nonsense from bottom to top.  They know they couldn't build cranes or airplanes or spacecraft out of marshmallows and twigs (much less "unicorn tusks" and "fairy tongues"), but they spend endless hours and years and lifetimes and the history of the species trying to devise and justify appropriate forms of human interactions based upon even more vastly blatant and absurd fictions.

The solutions really aren't difficult.  In fact, some individuals across the ages have almost (but not quite) managed to boil down reasonable approaches to human interaction to single sound-bites, like the famous "treat others as you want them to treat you" (probably not the exact quote).

The key identification of this soundbite, and ALL valid attempts at solutions, is the formulation in terms of individual humans (or "individual sentient entities", just in case some land on earth someday, or we encounter them during space travel).  ONLY formulations in terms of individual sentient beings are sane and coherent.  Which means, somewhere around 99.999% of all conversation and debate about every topic that boils down to "human interaction" (including everything considered "politics") is complete insanity, complete nonsense, and ultimately guaranteed to waste time and set individuals against each other in endless ways.  These conversations are thus self-defeating, except for the predators who self-consciously choose to control, drain and destroy every honest, ethical, benevolent, productive individual on earth.

I wish the futility of conversations about topics full of fictional nonsense was evident to everyone.  Many humans seem to recognize these topics are important, but almost none seem to recognize how the predators-that-be across the ages have completely destroyed their ability to reason and even be modestly sane.

Ever wonder what the nature and implementation of "the matrix" is?  Now you know.  But can you handle the truth?  Yup, that's what I figured.

SilverIsKing's picture

You are really bright and I think understand what you are saying.  We are all dealing in and around constructs which become accepted as normal.  I've previously thought about some of the things you said above, perhaps not in as much detail, but I agree that the world around us have been constructed by others, many of whom benefit by these fake rules, regulations, etc etc (constructs) and we just accept them at face value, treating them like they are part of life, the way it's supposed to be.  In reality, we are just born naked and no one, other than  parents, should have a say as to anything that goes on in the newborn's life from birth until death.

Am I close?

honestann's picture

Pretty much, yes.  To put it more in your terms, what exists is:  the universe, in which are galaxies, in which are star-systems, in which are planets, satellites, asteroids, comets, on which are mountains and craters and sometimes oceans and lakes.  And on at least one planet are plants and animals.

That's it.  That, plus everything molded and assembled out of the materials of earth is all that exists.  That's IT.  The endless fictions predators create, and then "rule" are fictions.  They don't exist.  For example, the island or continent (body of land) that people call Australia exists, but the country people call "Australia" is fiction.  Likewise, the body of land called "the Americas" exists, but the dozens of so-called "countries" are pure fictions.  A bunch of self-appointed self-important predators pretend those fictions exist, but they're just made up.  They didn't exist 50 million years ago, and people drawing lines on paper and making up names changes nothing in reality --- only in the brains of human suckers and sheeple.  Which is what a fiction is --- a mental unit with no referent, like "SantaClaus" or "ToothFairy".

So yeah.  I think this may be the easiest way to approach the topic, especially for young people.  Point at what does exist (universe, galaxies, stars, planets, lakes, oceans, mountains, plants, animals)... then start pointing out that everything else is just made up (everything that is not a physical entity).  Maybe teachers should give every kid a map that shows the Americas continent, or the Euroasian continent, and ask them all to create countries --- draw lines on the maps and assign names to the areas they choose.  Then hang them all up at the front of the class, show how they are all different, and ask them which countries are real?  It should be obvious they're just made up, and nothing in the real world changed just because some moron drew lines on pieces of paper.  And the notion that birds and fish and bunny rabbits can fly, swim and jump across any of these completely artibrary, invented, fictional borders --- but "free people" must get passports, visas, permissions, pay duty and all sorts of other nonsense, ALL on the basis of... what?  Completely make up fiction - pure NONSENSE.

Or something like that.

And, of course, point out how complete ABSURD in the EXTREME it is for supposedly "smart" animals like humans to spend the majority of their lives being pushed around by utterly and completely arbitrary non-existent fictions.  Of course, what they're actually being pushed around by are the neural configurations in their heads, which cause them to take endless absurd, wasteful, insane actions.

Unfortunately, what the predators know, but most regular folks don't, is what I call "the fatal flaw in human consciousness".  That is, for billions of years creatures evolved to "trust their mental units".  Before "abstraction and fiction" existed, this simply meant "trust what you see, hear, feel-by-touch, smell, taste and so forth).  Any creature that did not trust its mental units quite soon walked over the edge of the cliff (the observation of which he ignored), or walked in front of some hungry predator (the observation of which he ignored), or so forth, and was removed from the gene pool.  But now, humans can perform "abstraction" and invent "fiction", which are ALSO mental-units.  So when people just take their mental-units seriously, they act upon them like evolution bred them to.  But when those mental-units are completely bogus fictions invented and pushed by predators seeking to control every sucker on the planet, humans tend to follow them too, since that's what billions of evolution has bred them to do.  This explains the unbelievably obscene state of affairs that is human insanity, delusion and destructive behavior today.  The only cure is to never accept any mental unit as "real" unless you verify it first, and be very diligent in labeling every mental-unit as "provisionally fiction" until tested and verified as "real".  This is not difficult though --- anything that isn't a physical object (or action of a physical object/material) is fiction and not real.

From the human behavior point of view, what I'm saying essentially comes down to every individual dealing with every other individual as an individual with no more or less "authority" than each other (namely NONE).  I mean, just imagine some caveman 150,000 years ago telling another caveman he can't cross an invisible line "on the ground" that separates "Canada" and "USSA".  I'm sure they'd both break out laughing at the obvious stupidity of any such thing, because THEY have not been brainwashed to habituate pretending that absolute, complete, utter nonsense ficitons are real.  They wouldn't take any of that nonsense seriously, and neither should any modern human.

Previously I've described the basis for "natural ethics", which is simply "causality applied to human action (and interaction)" - nothing arbitrary, and nothing fictional required.  But I don't have time to write another 10,000 word rant today, and sadly all old ZH messages seem to have been purged recently.

SilverTech's picture

You think you can explain the world with logic, but what are you thinking with?

Your uber reductionist materialist philosophy cannot even explain consciousness.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems state that any complete mathematical system is inconsistent, and any consistent mathematical system is incomplete. In other words, your logic, no matter how consistent and complete you may think it is, is either inconsistent or incomplete, but honestly, almost certainly both.

honestann's picture

Hahahaha.  Boy did you step on a land mine!  Actually, I don't want to pick on you, because you had no way of knowing, I suppose.

Yes I can explain consciousness.  I fully understand consciousness.  More than that, I am part of a team currently creating a new implementation of smarter-than-human consciousness.  Which means, we've already implemented smarter-than-human consciousness.  Well, except for one minor detail that makes all the difference - it was much slower than real-time performance.  But functionally superior in every other way.

You are some brand of extreme rationalist-authoritarian mix, though I couldn't possibly figure out exactly what brand without hearing you answer hundreds or thousands of questions.  Let's just start with: How do you personally know Godel and other authorities you adopt soundbites from are correct?  And how can be you certain your interpretation of their theories as applied to specific cases (like this one) are valid?  And why on earth do you think "consciousness is a math system"?

Do you imagine that all processes are math manipulations?  Also, do you imagine that consciousness is "complete", whatever you might happen to mean by "complete"?  To be sure, human consciousness does not implement every possible useful mental process, at least not directly, and therefore must be "incomplete" by your meaning.  True?  False?

You make so many assumptions right off the bat, that perhaps your first intellectual chore should be to ask yourself the more fundamental questions your assertions depend upon before you make those assertions.

I must admit that I was not the original inventor, designer, developer and implementer of inorganic consciousness, so you would be correct to claim I did not create it.  I only work with that individual and his team on our re-implementation, which should be faster than human as well as even more vastly superior to human consciousness (though mostly because our inorganic consciousness does not make a host of stupid "errors of consciousness" that humans make, but need not make (one of which I mentioned above)).  But I do understand consciousness, so I assume that means I can "explain" consciousness in the sense you mean "explain".  To be sure, consciousness was explained to me, so it certainly can be done.

After thinking about your final paragraph a while, I'm not quite able to understand exactly would constitute complete as you mean it.  If your meaning is, the consciousness would need to be able to perform every possible process that might be able to be deemed a "conscious process", then obviously NO real implementation of consciousness (organic or otherwise) could possibly be "complete".  And as applied to humans, people who cannot hear or smell or taste would not be conscious.  In fact, every human would fail the test, since our consciousness of electromagnetic radiation only extends from about 3200A to 7000A.  And every machine consciousness would fail the same tests, albeit in different respects and measures.  So even the most rich and capable basis for human consciousness is incredibly limited.

You might say, "Yeah, but humans can create devices to extend our vision further", or some other common retort.  But all statements like that are beside-the-point since those humans who created those devices were not conscious, but sure managed to do the same kind of activities that we develop consciousness to perform in the first place!  In other words, the entire "completeness" argument has no bearing that I can see.  Not as applied to our inorganic consciousness, not as applied to organic consciousness, and not as applied to any theory or understanding of the fundamental nature and architecture of consciousness, much less a specific implementation.

Being in the position I'm in, I suppose the funniest part of your comments, and many other skeptical positions, is how straightforward and not-all-that-complex is consciousness, even smarter-than-human consciousness.  It has to be funny watching this nonsense from my perspective, since essentially we essentially have billions of beings that have consciousness claiming that consciousness cannot exist.  Hilarious!

Oh, and by the way.  The Wright Brothers did not completely prove "flying machines" by any theory.  What they did is build a "flying machine", then fly it, and point at it.  What makes you imagine that we (or your parents) cannot build a "thinking machine" without some magical form of "complete proof" to satisfy mathematicians (who don't have a freaking clue what is or is not the nature of consciousness)?

Perhaps I should also ask this.  Do you understand ANYTHING that you cannot prove?  If so, perhaps you answered your own question.  Do you understand how to drive a car?  Does that mean you can drive a car in a typhoon or during a supernova (thus "complete")?  Perhaps humans need to understand how to perform their own fundamental processes of consciousness effectively before they pretend to understand how to apply math theories to the question.

The real test of any theory is... implementation.  Been there, done that.  Just wasn't me.  But that doesn't mean I don't understand consciousness.  I do.  And all of us involved prefer to "prove it" again the same way the Wright Brothers did, not via some hyper-abstract symbol manipulation that nobody really understands, and super-smart humans completely detached from reality argue about for eternity while doing nothing of practical value.  And we intend to "prove it" only to ourselves, and enjoy the many benefits that naturally flow from the implementation.

BTW, my posts don't attempt to prove or demonstrate anything with logic.  While those posts do contain a bit of logic here and there (though not much), they are mostly simply exercises in "pointing things out".  They point at things in reality and note the absence of certain things that people imagine exist - quite a bit like pointing out that SantaClaus does not exist, only easier (and more controversial).  So really, the entire basis of your whole thesis is erroneous.  I wasn't trying to prove or demonstrate anything via logic, and only included a bit of logic here and there as a linguistic aid to my presentation.  In other words, I was just being "logical", not "proving with logic".

But don't feel too bad.  You are in excellent company!  You all just happen to be mistaken how to approach, formulate and answer questions like these.

TrustWho's picture

I do not think I would like the intellectual state you describe. The mind allows us to function in this competitive world of dynamic ecosystems. The beauty of life flows from joy, love and human connection in those comfortable moments of living that are scarce, because competition for resources is the natural state of affairs for all species on this planet. Leaders who can bring humans together and balance consumption, savings and investment can expand the beauty of life. 

Winston Smith 2009's picture

"We think too much and feel too little."

These days, exactly the opposite from what I see.

gavrilo princip's picture

there are many more important speeches, and here is one of them. I know that readers here all know it but anyway here is a link:

Major General Smedley Butler

Seer's picture

Actors were/are actors because they suck at real stuff, like math:

"And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone."

Charlie, what if we grow to 20 BILLION, does this still stand?  What about 100 BILLION?

The "game" by those who would rule is ALWAYS about the promise of a "better tomorrow" if only we work harder for Them: many different variations, but the theme is always the same.


ZDRuX's picture

Don't worry Mr. Malthus, I'm sure you'll get it right eventually. Maybe hundreds of years may not have proven your correct, but I'm sure if you speak it often and loud enough, you can will it happen. If only you could do more of your magical math and "prove" that your numbers show a definite decline in human progress and evolution that will end in disaster.

You have failed countless times in predicting unending human misery, but you always get it wrong. You are no better than the dickheads at IMF and our overlords in government... trying to steer society into what you think is right for everyone based on your personal observations.

How about you fuck off and let us deal with any problems that come along on our own, you and your kind have killed and done damage to humans that is far beyond that of any food or resource shortage. You should be proud.

shovelhead's picture

Don't worry about it.

If a population reaches a point of unsustainability they simply die off and migrate. Always have.

Migration causes territorial conflicts which cull the population further.

As far as THEY go, your pretty much stuck using the decreed money system and the robbery of inflation and taxes but you work for them by choice.

There's a lot of ways to minimize the robbery when you work for yourself. It's no crime to protect your property from pirates although the pirates tend to disagree.

You just have to be willing to keep a cutlass handy and repel boarders.

Just like real life.

shovelhead's picture

I'm not always wrong...

But when I am, I group people in random piles

and tell others how they think.

Fred123's picture

Huh.....US Congressman John E. Rankin was a democrat......

My father despised democrats because he knew they were totalitarians, liars, crooks, and racists. Looks like the dems have changed one bit in the last 80 years.

ebworthen's picture

Thanks for the post smartknowledgeu.

Metal Minded's picture

Here it is in Chaplin's own voice:

Greatest Speech Ever Made(3:38)

12,688,344 views and counting

Mareka's picture

"And so long as men die, liberty will never perish."

If and when science unlocks the secret to arresting the ageing process or how to transplant nerve tissue enabling a full body transplant all of humanity is in trouble because it is the despots who will have the means to live forever.  Hmmm... New world order plan still being directed by a man born in 1915.

Seer's picture

Up arrow...

I don't believe that Chaplin was being deceptive as much as he was being ideologically minded.  This does not, however, exempt one from being glaringly wrong, and for being called out for it.  Humans, like all living things, are ultimately under the control of natural forces and their/its contraints.  Trying to "overcome" these limitations allows those preaching such to be more distant from them, at the expense of all others.  Non-thinkers will buy into it all, thereby aiding the very fallacies that are cause for their control (by the "thinkers").

darteaus's picture

Charlie was also great at nailing 15 year old girls-he was twice hurriedly marries to pregnant 16 year olds. Married 5 times, he was also famous for his origination of the "casting couch" technique. This PR, was a big part of the reason for the Brit having his entry permit revoked.

Great artist, but a horrid little man. See "The Kid" on YouTube-very entertaining.

TheMerryPrankster's picture

Facts are nothing without context. This sexual activitiy ocurred at a time when the age of consent was as low as 12 years old in the USA.

Married 5 times? Liz Taylor was married 7 times did that diminish her acting abilities? What pray tell does the number of marriages have to do with his intellectual capabilities, other than to show he was very attractive to womaen?

i'm sure the sex was consensual, casting couch nonsense aside. Women and men have slept around to get what they want since the dawn of mankind.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up his height or shoe size as they are likely as relevant to this conversation.

Seer's picture

I appreciate your point (I'm always trying to point to the MESSAGE rather than the MESSENGER), but there is, I believe, relevance here.  I highly DOUBT that 12-year-old girls really liked being violated.  And, really, consented to it?  How well can a 12-year-old reason? (yeah, I know there are exceptions, but I'm talking about in general)

If one really PROPS up the PERSON then, YES, the PERSON's PERSONAL actions are fair game.

As I've noted elsewhere, actors are actors.  I don't believe them to be wise or be good role models.  The very premise with which he started the entire dissertation is based on the reader accepting a FALSE premise: that the planet is infinite.  He either was: A) Ignorant- math impaired; B) An idealogue (which "A" could still play a part in); or C) A knowing participant in deception (with rewards from those controlling the messages).

rastaman_management's picture

thank you for this thread +1

Vigilante's picture

Charlie, would be a card-carrying Obamanoid if he was alive today.


falak pema's picture

the amusing thing about this post is that it brings out the dichotomy of US society as iconised by ZH and the tea party.

Black and white is seen as the fight between Libertarian "me first" and european inspired "socialist/commie/nazi" "we first".

Two philosophical views on what should be the cardinal value of collective living in a modern republic/democracy.

From a 3000 year perspective of western history, the libertarians have always been proven wrong as a ruling POWER structure with a dominant philosophy; its always the "collectivists" who have won based on kingly/papal twin values of "one king, one religion, one law" or nation state constructs of "one people, one constitution, one elected leader". Tradition has always placed the libertarian as beacon of civil society, as somebody outside the mainstream of the governance and as contrarian who shows up the conventional ills of society; a albeit vital function, if society wants to evolve and progress and not devolve and regress into anarchy or dictatorship.

Since the Reaganista revolution in the USA, hegemon of west, the Libertarian creed has dominated the western statist institutions along with Maggie and given all the powers to the elites. The libertarians have become the exact mirror opposites of their own creed in the purple of statist crony capitalism. Worse than the statists of old, by far, as the historical evolution of Pax Americana since 1980 shows.

Now we are where we are in the depths of an awesome, imminent unwind of modern society and the Libertarians are burning their own idols who have betrayed their ideals. 

And the statists are coming back into command with a vengeance. Not because of newly found idealism but because of hitting the asymptote and bouncing back in desperation, covered in their own corruption.

Poor old Charlie's impassioned plea stays a utopian dream only good for the movies. The stuff legends are made of.

Seer's picture

Pretty rare that I down-arrow you, but I felt it necessary in this case.

"if society wants to evolve and progress and not devolve and regress into anarchy or dictatorship."

"Society," as we know it, is nothing more than a fabrication centered around "civilizations" that are, when one gets to the heart of it, about "cities," and "cities," by their very being/definition are UNSUSTAINABLE.  If this is in fact a correct assessment, which I believe it to be, then the entire notion of "society" is highly problematic to begin with, not sustainable.

For better or worse, I won't judge, I see "libertarians" more as rural folks who are more independent.  So, then, this would suggest that they'd be more anti-social as defined by any city-centric view.

ANYTHING, as long it's underlying premise is one of perpetual growth on a finite planet, is destined for eventual failure.  If you or anyone else can demonstrate how a city-based solution focusing on non-perpetual-growth could be had I'd be all ears; same from any "libertarian*".

* I tend to side more closely with "libertarians" because of my interpretation that, while perhaps not making the connection with growth, they are less inclined to promote cities as the "solution."

NOTE: don't get me wrong, I marvel at all the stuff that humans have been able to do (which have the appearance of "good"), and I don't condemn anything- it's just that I KNOW that, as long as the undelying premise is of perpetual growth, it'll eventually fail; this certainty of failure is why I cannot pretend that something is THE "solution."

falak pema's picture

well Seer, I don't second guess the BIG picture of History; I don't pretend to know whats good for humanity.

History is what it is : a choice between imperfect solutions written not by God's hands but those of Humans.

Like I said I don't think that however brilliant an individual may be he will necessarily be fit to be the leading light of his age. Libertarians are in that mould, they believe in Utopias. Unfortunately to be a leading light in history you have to be Alexander or Caesar; aka the opposite of a true libertarian, to influence history; for right or wrong, mostly for wrong.

That's the human thread. We have always had a penchant for allowing the predators get to the top of the heap; its human nature, if only to then kill them in retribution, as nothing pleases a mortal so much as burning his old idols. That is mediocrity personified, the sheeple instinct of the many. 

Galileo was right, but in his day as a libertarian he was humiliated, a contrarian, and obliged to bend knee. His victory was in front of posterity.

Abelard was right when he said "Who are you to sing "God wills it" ? And that the Knights Templars breed, killers in name of christianity,  are compatible with the Saviour's faith of "turning the other cheek", when he challenged Bernard of Clairvaux.

History proved that "God wills it" alike its muslim jihadist counterpart,  were wrong ideology, and the man who said on his death bed broken by the church : "I don't know so I doubt. I don't have your so called "divine certitude"; was right. 

YOUr thesis on perpetual growth I buy. I'm just pointing out that for right or wrong, the Libertarian philiosophy is better defended out of office than in office. It begets a worse type of dictator in office than a FDR, who IMO was a better president than all those who succeeded JFK. Libertarians, when they play at being Caesar, destroy their own values as it goes against the grain of their own nature. But power corrupts event the best, and the pure make the worst perverts in power as they continue to believe they are pure all the while power corrupts them beyond recognition. Life is a bitch! 

RagnarDanneskjold's picture

Libertarians would fall on the left side of politics with the collectivists, if you pull back far enough in time. The exceptions are the "national libertarians" who favor libertarianism in one country, their own, and realize that letting in foreigners who are anti-libertarian will result in not having libertarianism. Basically those people are in countries with a cultural history of libertarian ideas, north/northwest Europe & UK.

On the right are people who believe in collective enterprises, but that the state's power is very limited. The are pretty much no rightists/reactionaries in power in the West today, even though the public in the West still holds very reactionary ideas about nation and religion (in the U.S.). Which is why Europeans are slowing integration or even moving backwards on the EU, and the alliance of all the leftists groups in America have needed 8 years to get amnesty for illegal immigrants, and still may not get it passed.

shovelhead's picture

Collectivist bucket of fail, most likely.

Lordflin's picture

Hegel is an oft quoted historian/ philosopher who suggested that human society is in a constant process of evolution... The norm is challenged by a counter movement... the two clash giving way to a new norm that is some kind of composite... The new norm is then challenged by a new counter movement and so on. The modern elite (a euphemism for scum sucking bottom feeder) has embraced Hegel as a justification for an age old descent into decadence.

I rather suspect history is cyclical rather than evolutionary. Man is bound by a nature, and societies oscillate between its limits. Sadly, we have been on this merry go round for as long as man has been recording his behavior. I don't think there is any way off this thing folks...

shovelhead's picture

Plato thought we were going to hell in a handbasket too.

"Dadgummit, weren't like that when we was youngsters."

Every generation can eventually make that claim as we shuffle off to the cosmic compost pile.

RagnarDanneskjold's picture

Scratch the anti-fascist and you often find a communist. That's all he's giving you: science, progress, reason, getting rid of national borders. International communism/socialism. It has morphed into the EU, IMF, World Bank and various tranny movements (trans-nationalist). The ideas espoused by Chaplin won. The craphole modern world is your prize.

Vigilante's picture

Amen...that speech could easily have come from Maurice

....and ffs how many libtards/lefties/loonies have bothered to read 'Mein Kampf' before bleeting abt Hitler?

Not many...if any

NickVegas's picture

More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.

Must of read a different speach than I did, slave.

Ghordius's picture

mostly true, yes. yet "getting rid of national borders" is something that also appeals to individualists and anarchists, doesn't it? if your goal is getting rid of the state, you also get rid of national borders as a result, don't you?

meanwhile I disagree on the EU and the IMF. imo they are clearly inter-national orgs

trans-national is not the same as inter-national, then the second is about collaboration between nations while the first is going beyond the national paradigm

so in general (note the caveat) the liberal (including the libertarian) and the socialist are both against the conservative's notion of "national interest"

the first because it hinders the individual freedom, the second because it hinders group freedoms

the first because he is concerned about his wealth and is afraid of being oppressed as an individual, the second because he is concerned about not being oppressed as a class

RagnarDanneskjold's picture

They are international because if they proposed to abolish the nation today, their organizations would cease to exist. Their goal is to expand their power, and it can only come at the expense of the nation and smaller states.

Seer's picture

Show me any example where some power base did NOT seek to increase in size.

ANYTHING that is premised on perpetual growth on a finte planet will encounter problems with power, with its ability to acquire increasingly more resources in which to sustain itself.

I totally agree with the notion of "smaller," but I caution that "smaller" in and of itself is no better if it doesn't address the problems of growth.

RagnarDanneskjold's picture

The state and the nation are two different things. The nation are a people, and they tend to live in geographic proximity. Libertarians/anarchists who seek to abolish the nations of the world are as radical as the communists, if they are willing to use force to suppress those who do have group interests. If you allow group interests, there will be nations and borders.

Seer's picture

Please point out anywhere in nature where you can find another example of something resembling a LARGE State or "nation."

Ghordius's picture

so you believe in the nation (which is a group) that does not set up a border and does not care about it's group (aka national) interests?

not commenting, just trying to understand

not what we european continentals are used to. here a nation is (more often than not) characterized by it's own language, customs, culture, sense of national solidarity, army, police, courts, etc.

and a peculiar sense for borders, even when open by international arrangements. we fought so many wars about them

Ghordius's picture

good piece on Chaplin's The Great Dictator, one of my favourite movies. see it and then see Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Dictator"

"The next day, Attorney General James P. McGranery revoked Chaplin's re-entry permit and stated that he would have to submit to an interview concerning his political views and moral behaviour in order to re-enter the US. US Congressman John E. Rankin of Mississippi told the House in June 1947:

"[Chaplin] has refused to become an American citizen. His very life in Hollywood is detrimental to the moral fabric of America. [If he is deported] ... his loathsome pictures can be kept from before the eyes of the American youth. He should be deported and gotten rid of at once.""

did not know that. very interesting

TheMerryPrankster's picture

naziz on the moon and chaplin too


Dr strangelove meets southpark.


IronSky in one scene They wach Chaplin's film which has been edited down to 5 minutes and is now viewed as a documentary.


steveo77's picture

This is an item of concern for those who still live in Hawaii. 

 2 days after a Typhoon hit Japan, and TEPCO admitted large radiation releases due to the storm, radiation levels spike in Hawaii.

 Keep in mind, this will travel to mainland USA and cross over in a day to 4 days.

Another storm is headed to Fukushima for a 1 -2 punch.   This will extend the danger time frame.

Basic good radiation practice here:

1) Stay out of the rain

2) Dose up with anti-oxidants

3) Run your multiple HEPA filters all the time

4) Get a Geiger and learn how to use it

Charts and Maps are Here at the NUKEPRO


TheMerryPrankster's picture

Whatever your political beleifs or feelings regarding Chaplin, watch Limelight. It is a powerful film that has many lessons of life and a mans place in it.

I never Knew Chaplin was a musician until I watched Limelight, the only Academy Award Chaplin ever won was the score for Limelight.

True Dat, the irony is crushing.

Sam Clemons's picture

This is one of my favorite Youtube videos.

Catch phrases like "freedom," "liberty," "peace," have lost all meaning to me.  They are merely tools for trying to shape humans into being something more than what we truly are.  By examination, we are inherently greedy and willing to fuck over the earth, our brothers and sisters in order to survive.  Down to the cellular and genetic level, genes and cells will kill one another in order to survive.  People can act like we are something better than that.  But that is only as the most basic hierarchy of needs are satisfied.  

MeMadMax's picture

This guy fell for the jewish propaganda hook line and sinker...

Al Gorerhythm's picture

If by that you mean the promotion of "Democracy" as the hallmark of Liberty, then I presume you are correct. Your post is open to interpretation.