Unfortunately, Wikipedia falaciously says that fascism is usually from the right. I have not finished the book by Goldberg, but have found it to be a wealth of historical knowlege that has been ignored for too long. Thank you for this video.
@LawrenceKennard it's spelled fallacious, and fascism has always been on the extreme right. this was true for both Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini. "liberal fascism" is a contradiction in terms.
@MasterFugu no, Mussolini and Hitler were socialists before fascism was ever created as a term. Fascism is a far left phenomenon which is a logical outcome of the sick, disturbed totalitarian personalities we regularly find on the left. What a pathetic bunch of neurotic parasites inhabit the left side of the political spectrum.
your rightist of course and would say something ingorant like "and you're right the leftists have really embedded themselves at places like wiki" even majority have known fascism is faright because far right and fascism are the same. the right has always hated facts and will countinue
1. both love authorianism
2. hated of liberals, communist, socialist and anarchist
To those that think people of wealth are just born into such wealth and never labour for their riches....you're a damned fool! Very very very very very few of those uber (excuse the lack of umlauts iPhone has none.) rich were born into such wealth that from the time they stand up to go pee, they've made a million bucks by the time they make it to the restroom to actually pee. The vast majority worked they're butts off to get there. And now you'll take it away?! Not over this unemployed and over
If anyone who knows well fascism and communism he'll be unable to find more than 3 major differences between them. Fascists/Nazis and Comunists/Bolshevics derived from the same socialist movement which split in two in second decade of the 20th century, Communist were international socialists, others were national socialists. In other meaning they were almost identical. The list of similarities is endless.
@vsc632 Well, I can see you are going out from the Soviet model. And yeah, there is not much difference. But look up exactly what the left thinks of The Soviet Union. By the left I mean informed socialists.
@USAFSmiley87 You're very young and ignorant. There were no republicans who did such things in the 60s. They were all Democrats. The south was called the solid south before the 70s. There were no Republicans back then there. They were Dixiecrats. Both then and now, scratch a racist and you'll find a Democrat underneath. You freaks live for that stuff.What's funny is that you're only 23, don't know a thing about politics but feel the need to talk anyway. Disgraceful.Read a book,put down the wii.
Mussolini was a socialist but sold out every socialist principle in his bid for power. He earned his name beating up socialists and breaking up strikes, was appointed by the King and was endorsed by the Catholic Church. Pretty conservative stuff.
Calling people a fascist or a nazi is usually utterly uncalled for but I have more sympathy when its used when someone launches a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people than when people use it because liberals make people recycle.
Almost all the socialists left the NSDAP on April 7th 1930 "Die Sozialisten verlassen die NSDAP. The rest were murdered between June 30th and July 2nd 1934. in what in Germany is called the Roehm Putsch and here is known as The night of the long knives. Between June 30th and July 2nd 1934 the SS rounded up the SA (Brown Shirts) because they were seen as a threat to Hitlers regime along with Socialists, Communists, Liberals, Intellectuals and anyone seen as a threat to Hitler's regime.
I am a national socialist, i loved liberal fascism, and I liked this vid. unlike most of the modern left i am confident in my position enough to not fall apart like hormonal teen when my beliefs are questioned. and even though Im still learning i prefer to argue respectfully and calmly with those who totally disagree with me than to preach to the already "socialist" choir! the problem with the left today is we can not convey our message with reverting to anger, name calling, and tantrums!
@thewaterwillcome Why are you a national socialist? That seems like a horrible ideology. I like my personal freedom, thank you. And I like the Jews too, I want them to be around.
@thewaterwillcome The problem with ‘post-modern’ society is there are too many people with nothing meaningful to do, building ‘careers’ around controlling the lives of others and generally making social nuisances of themselves. They justify their meddling by discovering social ‘problems’ and getting the media to magnify them out of all proportion." -Graham Strachan
@spgfld1903 You talk about socialists controlling the lives of others, yet every law that regulating what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, who can get married or adopt, what people can put into their own bodies, what health decisions a woman can make, who can choose to end their lives, and what languages can be spoken in government buildings are from the right wing, so don't talk to me about controlling people's lives.
@robertrulebirtannia not here they dont... liberals are really communists, but to pussy to call it that..so they use liberars or democrats...notice democrats & "DEMON are REAL close..must be a reason...we will LET you make up bullshit laws & rules for yourselves..we will stay free..hows that sound? in your statement...WHY DO YOU THINK AMERICA JOINED FORCES..LIKE TEA PARTIES ETC...TO FIGHT TYRANNY..IF NOT WE WOULD JUST MOVE ALONG LIKE CATTLE.....BRACE FOR IT...PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP!!
@spgfld1903 liberals can never be Communist, they are too cowardly to fight the powers-that-be they can never be radical. as for the demens part your being silly.
Here's a fact of the day: did you know that Stalin is the main reason the Tea Party gets it's funding, Koch industries made it's money working for the Soviet Union during the first 5 year plan, without Stalin the teabaggers wouldn't get half the funding they do.
It's way more complicated than just saying liberalism = fascism. The book is based on blanket political definitions which change year to year, country to country. Early progressivism is way different than progresivism is now. Socialism is a totally useless term that means everything from any type of government program to communist doctrine. Fascists were in many ways the direct opposite of liberals anti multiculturalism, rascism, pro masculine government
@robertrulebirtannia Liberalism is statism. You want the government to do everything. You allocate to them all of our wealth and they respond by crafting thousands of pages of laws and regulations over our behalf. The average leftist wouldn't know freedom from honor or truth. Our leftists are not nationalists, they're internationalists so I think ITZI is a better term than the one from the thirties. I agree though I only say leftist or statist. They're never liberal about anything.
@pinegrove33 It's something that I found about you CONservatives you advocate smaller government, but firmly support laws regulating what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, who can get married or adopt, what people can put into their own bodies, what health decisions a woman can make, who can choose to end their lives, and what languages can be spoken in government buildings so don't talk to me about controlling people's lives.
@robertrulebirtannia You're lying.I don't care what you do in your bedroom.We have a 3.5 Trillion dollar state.I'd cut it to 1 Trillion and there'd be no room for bedroom checks or fascism or much else but the basics.We have endless bureaucracies here full of fascists here. Let's get rid of them and give the money back to the people. You go ahead and marry a gerbil for all I care and you can adopt one too. None of your arguments apply with a state one-fourth of the size that we have now.
@robertrulebirtannia I don't think conservative would care what you put in your bodies, if they weren't concerned with have to pay for your shelter, healthcare, food, etc. "Health decisions a woman can make", why not just say kill your unborn child. That's what your talking about. Languages, lets see, the drivers tests is provided in 19 languages but the street signs are only in English. Can you immigrate to China and demand that they print all their government documents in English just 4 u?
[Liberalism: the belief in the importance of liberty and equality.
Fascism: authoritarian nationalism
How are they alike?]
True the modern day liberal is pro equality. But it is a very different equality than the Founders had in mind. Liberals view an equality of all people on financial, social, and educational terms. The founders viewed equality in God's eyes. So the modern day liberal will tax the "rich" and welfare out money to equalize everyone. Which reduces liberty.
@robertrulebirtannia I have never really found that people on the left really put this into practice. Most of the stuff they campaign on actually increases the power of the government yet still want to think that more laws and restrictions create a freer society.
@timbosforporn was people on the left who set things like the patriot act? was it the left who wanted to keep jim crow laws in place? was the left who started this stupid war on terror?
@robertrulebirtannia I believe the war on terror was started by terrorist who crashed two airplanes into the twin towers. That and other examples you said are not examples of fascism. Just bad laws but fascist were all socialist. Hitler was a National SOCIALIST, Musilini was in the socialist party, and the communist were also socialist. The progressives got all their political thinking from the same thinking that inspired fascist.
@timbosforporn No the war of terror was started by Reagan giving billions to the Mujahideen.
By that very same logic the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democray, Mussolini was killed and hung by communist partisans. Who fought fascism every step of the way during the 1920s 30s and 40s socialists, the conservatives were more the willing to support fascism.
@robertrulebirtannia YOu mean that conservatives would actually support national SOCIALISM or a guy who was a part of the italian socialist party. That fits the mold...
Communist and fascist routinely fought each other and even worked together to get the same result. The communist helped the NAZIs get into power thinking that once hitler got it started they could take over later on. They could do that because both were almost identical to each other.
@timbosforporn To quote Churchill, Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world, Daily Mail owner Lord Rothermere praising British Union of Fascists leader Mosley for his sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine.
If you read history the communist party of of germany was banned by the nazis after they were blamed for the Reichstag fire.
go to my channel comment section and look at the newest comments and you will see that communists and nazis are complete opposites.
@robertrulebirtannia They were so different from each other the NAZIs were able to attract other communist. Once they got into power they went after the communist party simply because both were competing for the same spot. They also went after Jews, liberal democrats, and everyone that got in their way else so its not like the communist party was special.
The same thing happen in communist Russia. Anyone who got in the way were put in the gulog and I assume that includes 'fascist'.
@timbosforporn But the Communist Party was the frist victim of the Nazis, they burned the reichstag for an excuse to ban the Communist Party, they didn't got that far to ban the Liberal or social democratic parties, the communists are Trade Unions were the biggest and most organised groups against the Nazis, once they were killed off it was easy to get to the rest of groups against them.
I aint gonna defent stalin so don't try to make me.
@robertrulebirtannia How does order of prosecution change anything? Hitler could have went after the communist last. Would that change anything? Maybe he thought it was better to get rid of his political rivals first so he could remove any competition.
@robertrulebirtannia duh! but so did the communist. When lenin took over he instituted the red terror and purged all counter-revolutionary activities. Political opponents were killed just like the NAZIs did to their rivals. It wasn't different.
@robertrulebirtannia counter-revolutionary activities were usually defined as being a part of a newspaper that opposed the new government. In most civil wars its just people who took up arms against the state not had different ideas than the new thought mold that took over.
@timbosforporn No the counter-revolutionies of the didn't need newspapers, they had the backing of the United States and most of europe, they had been the state before the revolution, I know non-American history is very hard for an American to get your head round but do try.
@robertrulebirtannia I feel the frustration from you. Its usually sign I'm winning. I've been pretty cool on this end. Here is one more fact. Most of the boulshivicks actually discussed killing millions of people systematically simply because they didn't want to "advance" according to the soviet philosophy. Fascist did the same thing but most used more coercive techniques than the communist. In some ways, the communist were far worst than fascist like Mussilini
@timbosforporn No it's a sign that your stupidity is annoying me. For starters it's spelt Bolshevik not
boulshivicks, second no were have I heard that the the soviet goverment discussed killing simply because they didn't want to advance. not even the most lie filled anti soviet propaganda has said that, so I'm guessing your just make up history here..
@robertrulebirtannia No I actually read it. Did you know that the liberal democrats actually held power at first but the Bolsheviks actually forcefully took over after they realized they couldn't get anyone to vote them into power. I believe many white Russians leaders fled and lived here in the United States until they died.
It just seems odd that the mass killings seem to continue up until the 1950s.
@timbosforporn The provisional government was unpopular at the time of october revolution because they wouldn't pull out of ww1, the Bolsheviks were also attacked and many were killed by the provisional government before the revolution, just look up July Days.
@timbosforporn Sure the provisional government were 'liberal democrats' but they firstly land owning capitalists, who put the needs of themselves before the needs of the People, hardly normal people.
@robertrulebirtannia People who actually respected the property rights of each person. They weren't interested in making laws that forcefully transferred the property of one to another. I call them normal because normal and ethical human beings don't try to forcefully transfer other people's property to another person or to themselves.
@robertrulebirtannia and that exposeses the totalitarianism behind it all. Individuals aren't free to decide to do with their own property or even their own lives. It has to be decided for them and in order to do this they have to destroy the rights of each person over their own property in that society.
@timbosforporn Individuals aren't free to decide to do with their own property in first place! you and I and everyone we know personally don't own property we are property, only around 5% of the world's population can truly be said to own property.
@robertrulebirtannia That is something I agree with you on some level. We are property but we are our own property. That was established by nature and everything we produce with that property is also our own such as the material goods in this world. We own our own labor as well as our own person so anything produced by that labor is ours as well. Its when the state begins to deny that our property is our own that abuses begin to occur.
@timbosforporn But that's not how it is, what we produce is not our property it becomes the property of our boss.
Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations.
@robertrulebirtannia Are you saying that the computer you typed that out on belonged to your employer? If so, did you have to ask his permission to use his computer?
@timbosforporn Well for starters I'm using my laptop not a computer at work, but you would need permission to use this computer if it was a workplace one, they don't let anyone walk in and use the computers
@robertrulebirtannia I assumed you were using your own computer which you don't need anyone elses permission to use. Your bosses computer you do need permission because it is his but if your boss decided to use your computer then he would need your permission. The right of property gave each of you the power to reject the other's demand which preserves the freedom of both.
@robertrulebirtannia I believe contract law would stop that. You signed a contract (or agreement) between you and your employer. it states what you must do and what he must do. What you do with your computer at home or anywhere else is within the scope of the agreement. I'm assuming that you did not agree to let your boss use your computer so what control does someone have over your property that you did not previously agree to?
@timbosforporn Yeah but it doesn't stop the boss from royally shafting people. The fact remains that the boss has power over you no matter what contract you have.
@robertrulebirtannia But can they use that power without your consent? Can he tell you what to do in your home when not at work? Did he have the power to command you before and after employment?
@timbosforporn They can use that power without consent because we live in a hierarchical society, the one's at the top have power over thoses at the bottom.
@robertrulebirtannia In other words, your boss can just grab people off of the street and force them to work for him against their free-will? Does that actually happen in real life?
@timbosforporn The Boss doesn't need to grab people off of the street (as they used to) they hasve power over a person's pay which means they little choice than to work for them.
@robertrulebirtannia Of course they do. It was their property and they give it to you. Once it is yours you can do whatever you want. You have to ask them for work which gives them power but they also do a fair amount of asking themselves which is why they put out want adds. Its an agreement between two people. There is no cumpulsion between exerted between two parties since both parties can decide on their own what they want to give to the other side.
@timbosforporn No they don't, It's their property and they use others to run it, if you were to do whatever you want you would be fired. they put out want adds because they need others to do their work for them, the fact remains that the party with money hows powere other the party without money.
@robertrulebirtannia Of course, thats because they pay you to do certain things which you freely agreed to do unless you are still sticking to the idea that they have somehow enslaved you. Are you isisting that you live under slavery?
@timbosforporn We are enslaved we are wage slaves, we work not for ourselfs but someone else who owns what we work and we get paid only a small amount of what is made.
@robertrulebirtannia Who said what was produced was yours? Did you purchase the raw materials or did you just do what you were told to make it? You may control the rights to your labor and sell it to whoever you want but you do not own the rights to what is produced. That is owned by the owner.
@timbosforporn Because it was your and others labour that when into making said product not the owner of the factory, who got the raw materials frist place, Workers.
@robertrulebirtannia I asked it if was YOURS which does not refer to the collective ownership of the working masses. A worker mined, a manager made sure it was shipped, a truck drive roled it to the factory, until it was worked on by the worker. In each stage of the transportation the property belonged to one individual who happen to own it at one particular part of the cycle. The said worker never owned it because it was never given to the worker in the first place.
@robertrulebirtannia At any one point of the deliverty the material always belonged to an individual. It never belonged to more than one person or to society itself. It was transferred to the owners who happen to be the factory owner. The factory owner transferred ownership to the consumer. The raw materials never belonged to more than one individual at a time and the individual decided who they were to give it to. That determined the ownership of the property.
@robertrulebirtannia They gave the person money or transferred something they had in order to get that property. That money they got they labored for which was given to them by someone else.
@timbosforporn Except it hasn't. How do you think capitalism started? What determined who was a property owner and who wasn't? Was it merit, or was it tyranny? Under feudalism peasants were forced to work the land while their lords extracted rent. With capitalism, many were thrown off the land and left with no choice but to work in factories as they were left owning nothing but their ability to work. There's nothing just or natural about that.
@robertrulebirtannia equality and liberty can't exist together. its either liberty and personal responsibility or equality and poverty. you can't expect people to work hard if there are no insentives to better there own situation
@robertrulebirtannia NO LIBERAL I KNOW WANTS THAT..THE LIBERALS I KNOW WANT SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, BUT MOST OF ALL POWER TO CONTROL,AND MEDDEL INTO THE LIVES OF EVERYONE ELSE BUSINESS!!
@spgfld1903 you advocate smaller government, but firmly support laws regulating what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, who can get married or adopt, what people can put into their own bodies, what health decisions a woman can make, who can choose to end their lives, and what languages can be spoken in government buildings so don't talk to me about controlling people's lives.
@robertrulebirtannia i am for NO CONTROL...FUCK EVERYONE..I AM FREE ANY FOOL THAT WANTS TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO..WHAT TO WEAR..HOW TO SPEND HIS MONEY..AND EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD MOVE TO A COMMUNIST COUNTRY..THERE ARE PLENTY OUT THERE..RUN BY THEIR GOVT..CAUSE THEY DONT WORK...ILL KEEP MY FREEDOM...LONG LIVE FREEDOM & REAL MEN WILLING TO FIGHT FOR IT!!
The problem with ‘a socialism’ society is there are too many people with nothing meaningful to do, building ‘careers’ around controlling the lives of others and generally making social nuisances of themselves. They justify their meddling by discovering social ‘problems’ and getting the media to magnify them out of all proportion." -Graham Strachan
@robertrulebirtannia {Liberalism: the belief in the importance of liberty and equality. Fascism: authoritarian nationalism}
Allow me.
Liberalism=Marxism=Being allowed to use big govt to take from others to satisfy your needs by.... FASCISTS who also want big government to suppress individual economic independence and pursue imperialism and monopoly.
This is why the bankers funded the communist revolution.
@mindprism Liberalism isn't Marxism, Marxists would laugh in your face if you said that to them. Liberalism isn't willingly to fight the powers that be.
Fascists want to turn things back to the days of imperialism and colonialism not go forward as Marxosm wants.
You talk about s controlling the lives of others, yet every law that regulating what people can do in their personal life are from the right wing, so don't talk to me about controlling people's lives.
@robertrulebirtannia What they call liberalism today is Marxism. The formal liberalism is called libertarianism.
My point is that the fascist element uses the govt dependency created by the Marxist element as a shield that prevents the dismantling of govt. And yes, esp in the US we have a problem with religious fascism -- Christianity and Zionism.
The way out is to assume the political polyglot that the US was designed to be - an esp small central govt
@mindprism Read the Manifesto before you start making up bullshit, liberals aren't marxist, they lack everything that it means to be a Marxist. libertarianism is anarchy for rich people. fascism isn't about making people dependen on the goverment it's about setting one group of people high up and makingb the rest their slaves. if you read Marx's he says that the workers have to dismantle the old goverment in order to build a new society.
No one more for big goverment then people like you.
@robertrulebirtannia "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" -- Karl Marx, one of his most famous slogans.
So if current liberals are not for creating dependency on govt, name three programs they have dismantled in the last 50 years. Then name how many they have created.
@mindprism It's a famous slogan but few people know what it means, it means every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs.
what does that have to do with dependency on the goverment.
@robertrulebirtannia {what does that have to do with dependency on the goverment.}
We have been following that Marxist doctrine more and more over the last 100 years. All countries have, and all countries are now broke, and have thereby enslaved their populations in perpetuity. We are on the brink of worldwide revolt and tremendous violence looms at humanity.
The die is cast. But I doubt you acknowledge any of that. You will see, just remember to praise your hero Marx when it comes about.
Pentagon resources and U.S. troops may be used if needed to quell protests and bank runs during an economic crisis, the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Institute reported.
"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," the War College study states.
Yea- those at the Defence dept agree with me. Did their hat fall off too?
@mindprism what does this have to do with your 'We have been following that Marxist doctrine more and more over the last 100 years' conspiracy theory, any goverment no matter it's type would use troops if Widespread civil violence broke out.
@robertrulebirtannia Its not a conspiracy theory, go read the 10 planks of the communist manifesto and you will see that we have been steadily implementing these policies. And it relates to civil violence because these policies are antithetical to the Constitution and represent an OVERTHROW of our govt. THAT is what is pissing people off.
@mindprism I’ve read the manifesto, the ’10 planks’ as you call them is Marx’s idea of changing the mode of production from capitalism to common ownership (something you would benefit from) only one of the ‘planks’ could really be said to be put in place.
No take your 200 years out of date Constitution and jack off to it.
The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.
Communism does not work.
See: Jacob Schiff, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, Bolshevik revolution
@robertrulebirtannia At its heart, Communism is a system of social control and oppression dedicated to smashing the pillars of western civilization: nationhood, democracy, Christianity and the nuclear family. It cares for no other principle than raw power and exercises it ruthlessly.
Vladimir Lenin owned nine Rolls-Royces during his Soviet leadership.
Communism is a fraud, babycakes. I know that makes you sad but thats the truth.
@mindprism To smash the pillars of western civilization would be a good thing, to end nationhood is to end war, we don't have democracy all we have is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, your the one who hates family not me, I want to the whole world to be one family, you hate any family that isn't in your image and there are many Socialists who are religious.
Lenin never owned a car the only car he ever used were state owned.
@robertrulebirtannia {I want to the whole world to be one family, you hate any family that isn't in your image}
I believe in freedom of association. You believe that anyone who doesn't want to be in your big family is evil, and cannot be tolerated. You won't be happy until everyone is doing things your way. You are a totalitarian.
If your ideas are so good- show me where. Where is this big happy family you have going. I'm sure if it exists everyone would be glad to join.
@mindprism They wouldn't have a choice the same way we don't have a choice now, we have to be citizen of a nation or we can't do anything. they have to be citizens of the world lest we fall back into the old way of doing things. if anything your totalitarian you want to keep people locked up in borders and forever fighting over land I want all that to end and the whole of humanity to live in peace and cooperation.
What about Cuba were ever one has the right to go to school and have health care.
@robertrulebirtannia {your totalitarian you want to keep people locked up in borders}
No I don't. Ironically I was about to ask you why you dont move to Cuba or somewhere where you can be among others who think the same as you do -- help them build your communist paradise and 'show the world' how its done.
This obviously isn't the country for you. So go be with your comrades and leave us in peace. If I knew of a more free place I would go there.
@robertrulebirtannia Sorry, but your reasons are flimsy. If you wanted to move to Cuba you could study spanish and save the money. Neither of these are hard. Cuba isn't that far.
It is true that Fascism is often misused today, but Goldberg's understanding of Fascism is limited as well. He ignores the anti-intellectual elements of Fascism, the intense nationalism and the anti-pluralism elements of Fascism.
@sighedeffects You missed the point of his book that he was making. The left is intensely nationalist but not in a classical fascist way. They no longer have to be the strongest but have to be the number one in education, health care, and anything else. You don't know notice how many times left wing (and right wing) news outlets runs a story about how America is #10 in something. Its fascism in that it exalts national goals above individual interest.
@timbosforporn Fascism does contain elements of extreme fascism but that is not the only element of fascism. Goldberg tries to equate two diametrically opposed ideologies. Farther, although sometimes the argument can be made that the totalitarian forms of far Left governments resemble fascist governments, Liberalism is not even "Far Left."
@timbosforporn As far as the ranking about education or health care, I think the point is less about competition and more about standing. A country that holds a majority of the wealth in the world is seriously lacking in standards of care, has a higher infant mortality rate, lower life expectancy and low literacy . . . but the United States is still number 1 in incarceration rates.
@why760nitro You mean like the conservatives that want to make it illegal for gays to be married because they disagree with it? Or the conservatives that want to tell people when they have the right to control their bodies? (state execution, abortion, right to die) - reality is really much more complicated then some dialectic exercise of "us versus them" rhetoric.
the man has an opposite ideology to my own but he gives a convincing argument. And its nice to finally hear someones opinion and have then not shout in your face and throw insults at you.
i AM THE RESULT OF ARIANS GENES in 1935 and im italian . im handsome and have high intellect and yes ......... i cant talk ...... because i would be censored just to be MYSELF. Hail. ------ DUX IS MY LUX ----
i AM THE RESULT OF ARIANS GENES in 1935 and im italian . im handsome and have high intellect and yes ......... i cant talk ...... because i would be censored just to be MYSELF. Hail. ------ DUX IS MY LUX ----
In another comment section, for another video, one of these patriotards told me:
"Don't you know that Hitler established health care in Germany?" to compare Hitler to Obama again.
I replied: "You idiot know nothing, health care and other social securities were actually established by Bismarck, a super-conservative and socialist-hater, long before Hitler!"
That shows how dumbed down people are. But at the same time THINK they know everything.
These mind slaves know nothing about history and the achievements of nationalsocialism.
They don't understand that social securities and healthcare do actually work in a HOMOGENOUS society. It starts to malfunction when xenogeneric elements are implanted into this society.
They can't comprehend that, because they're brainwashed.
Social, political and moral ideals are a consecuence of fear. Defending ideals over reasoning and understanding is just avoiding the reality, avoiding the real problem, avoiding the present. Ideals are precisely the cause of all of our social problems because they give purpose to this famous quote: "The end justifies the means".
It is time to abandon our ideals and look for real solutions. Long live to reasoning!
the typical mode of government nowadays in the West is latter day Fascism
a two tiered system extolling one - wimyn and trashing men
men in the West are typically fitted with a peonage yoke - he pays her child maintenance with little access n pays her alimony and lives like a dog there after :)
Enverpasha55: Fat is a necessary nutrient. Fat is particularly critical for good brain development and function; particularly in children. Children that are deprived of fat have lower IQs and higher rates of mental illness. Apparently youre a couch potato that tries to control your weight by reducing your fat intake; which would explain youre not being able to comprehend/conclude on your own that many of the current definitions of fascism are dishonest miss nomenclature.
Enverpasha55 Ive seen villages of Eskimos whoms diet virtually was almost entirely blubber; yet they were not excessively fat, their cholesterol was low, they had lower rates of heart attacks and strokes. They were healthy because it was cold and they had to work extremely hard. The Eskimos that were put on reservations and ate more healthy food actually became fatter and had higher cholesterol and had higher rates of strokes and heart attacks; because they became couch potatoes on the dole
Enverpasha55 A small sin tax on a few items can be reasonable. However its a slippery slope. Regrettably like a fascist sheep you have subscribed to the slippery slope. Making a sin tax on fats, sugar, and caffeine is unreasonable and fascist. People arent fat because of food; youre fat because youre lazy. More people are fat now because more people are lazy; instead of going out and working and/or playing real sports; they vegetate in front of a TV or computer.
I disagree with your terminology of "laziness". I do not believe that sitting in front a TV or a computer screen can be default be termed "lazy". This is unfair to the multitude of attention whores on youtube and the internet the world of over. It would be far more accurate to say that people are fat because their energy intake far exceeds any effort on their behalf to lose it.
Enverpasha55 the fascist liberals have dishonestly changed the definition of the word fascist; to draw a way attention of their own sins. Thats one of the signs of fascism; manipulating the media, rewriting history, redefining words to be more politically correct. Its all part of the fascist indoctrination.
Enverpasha55 the definition in some of the new dictionaries are obvious miss nomenclature. If you look at an older dictionary there is no right wing in the definition. The Nazis and the Fascisti were socialists; much like liberals/Democrats. Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' party of Germany. The Fascisti had a blend of socialism and capitalism; much like Obama is doing with the automotive industry, health-insurance industry, banking industry, ect
The left couldnt give a rats ass about anyones health- if they really thought tobacco was sooo bad, they would simply BAN it, wouldnt they? wouldnt that save more lives than just taxing it?
This is all about raising more revenue to expanded an already bloated govt.
Oh right ? And what about liberals passing laws telling churches what they are not to say about "gays" even tho' it is defined clearly in the bible ? There is a liberal in the UK parliament who wants to even moderate what people say in private conversations ! Liberals( so called, actually, mis-called) are fascists alright.
Look at obama's plans for big tobacco...Libs preach tolerance, but if you practice a habit like smoking that they can tax, they throw tolerance right out the window in favor of expanding government and increasing tax revenues.
Its nonsense (and I'm not even a smoker, but I dont care what other people do with their money)
Its not a facism like Hitler not yet anyway. Its a slow tyranny, to quote Mark Levin. Its the govt regulating what you do and how you do it. Facism can come in many forms. Example, govt regulating healthcare, the govt can decide, you smoke you shouldn't get that lung transplant that could save your life because your gonna die anyway. If the govt controls things like healthcare they can control every aspect of your freedom to choose, thats what this facism means.
we don't have an imperialist agenda. The left seeks to punish Americans for their choices. Consider "cap and steal" or socialized health care which is on the menu now. Taxes to perfect our lives on transfats to tobacco to soda. The bigger the federal government gets the less freedom we have. The money that we makes is ours. It does not belong to the government to redistribute--i.e. steal from the people to give to the government.
Hating has nothing to do with it. That's a strawman argument. In order to judge the left and fully understand their anti-freedom agenda it's imperative to know from where their movement arose.
When modern Liberals speak the same language, quote the same authors, seek to perform social engineering as Progressives, it's not a logical fallacy. At that point it becomes a direct comparison.
Nailed it. Great video. Very well done. People need to look at the history of every idea the progressives have pushed on us and does not exist in the Constitution. Why do we have the prohibition of booze in our Constitution but after that the Government now just does what it wants to us in the name of the Constitution. All Federal Law should be strictly outlined in the Constitution. Thats so when retards like progressives have the state block human rights we need a record of it to show it
The funny thing is that fascism was born out of socialism. I think Karl Marx was a big influence on Hitler when Marx wrote this: 'The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life most give way. They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Sounds like Hitler studied Marx quite well.
Actually Hitler hated Marxists. The Nazis killed thousands of Marxists, and right wing Freikorps militias who later supported Hitler put down socialist uprisings. Although Nazi means National Socialist, the name is a misnomer. Hitler's policy's were not socialist at all. He wanted a traditionalist authoritarian state, not a socialist one. He sent troops to kill socialist revolutionaries during the Spanish Civil War. Get your facts right before you take a quote out of context.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia falaciously says that fascism is usually from the right. I have not finished the book by Goldberg, but have found it to be a wealth of historical knowlege that has been ignored for too long. Thank you for this video.
LawrenceKennard 3 months ago
@LawrenceKennard it's spelled fallacious, and fascism has always been on the extreme right. this was true for both Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini. "liberal fascism" is a contradiction in terms.
MasterFugu 3 months ago
@MasterFugu no, Mussolini and Hitler were socialists before fascism was ever created as a term. Fascism is a far left phenomenon which is a logical outcome of the sick, disturbed totalitarian personalities we regularly find on the left. What a pathetic bunch of neurotic parasites inhabit the left side of the political spectrum.
pinegrove33 3 months ago
@MasterFugu National-Socialist: NAZI; Musalini (spelling?) also is from the LEFT, Thus, it's not ALWAYS from the right. Read the book.
LawrenceKennard 3 months ago
@MasterFugu If Hitler were conservative, what was he looking to conserve? Same with Mussolini. Point made.
Paulsur 3 months ago
@LawrenceKennard no, thank you my friend! and you're right the leftists have really embedded themselves at places like wiki
pinegrove33 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
your rightist of course and would say something ingorant like "and you're right the leftists have really embedded themselves at places like wiki" even majority have known fascism is faright because far right and fascism are the same. the right has always hated facts and will countinue
1. both love authorianism
2. hated of liberals, communist, socialist and anarchist
3. xenophobia, nationalist, anti-integration
4. oppression
istraight1 3 months ago
I love the Latin i pick up here. Especially watching a vid from 2008, here we are over 3 yrs later. QED indeed.
WeighUpJudge 5 months ago
To those that think people of wealth are just born into such wealth and never labour for their riches....you're a damned fool! Very very very very very few of those uber (excuse the lack of umlauts iPhone has none.) rich were born into such wealth that from the time they stand up to go pee, they've made a million bucks by the time they make it to the restroom to actually pee. The vast majority worked they're butts off to get there. And now you'll take it away?! Not over this unemployed and over
cjeffe007 7 months ago
@cjeffe007 who are you talking to? Your comment has nothing to do with this video
pinegrove33 7 months ago
If anyone who knows well fascism and communism he'll be unable to find more than 3 major differences between them. Fascists/Nazis and Comunists/Bolshevics derived from the same socialist movement which split in two in second decade of the 20th century, Communist were international socialists, others were national socialists. In other meaning they were almost identical. The list of similarities is endless.
vsc632 1 year ago
@vsc632 Well, I can see you are going out from the Soviet model. And yeah, there is not much difference. But look up exactly what the left thinks of The Soviet Union. By the left I mean informed socialists.
intenzez 6 months ago
@USAFSmiley87 You're very young and ignorant. There were no republicans who did such things in the 60s. They were all Democrats. The south was called the solid south before the 70s. There were no Republicans back then there. They were Dixiecrats. Both then and now, scratch a racist and you'll find a Democrat underneath. You freaks live for that stuff.What's funny is that you're only 23, don't know a thing about politics but feel the need to talk anyway. Disgraceful.Read a book,put down the wii.
pinegrove33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mussolini was a socialist but sold out every socialist principle in his bid for power. He earned his name beating up socialists and breaking up strikes, was appointed by the King and was endorsed by the Catholic Church. Pretty conservative stuff.
Calling people a fascist or a nazi is usually utterly uncalled for but I have more sympathy when its used when someone launches a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people than when people use it because liberals make people recycle.
mgdev 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Almost all the socialists left the NSDAP on April 7th 1930 "Die Sozialisten verlassen die NSDAP. The rest were murdered between June 30th and July 2nd 1934. in what in Germany is called the Roehm Putsch and here is known as The night of the long knives. Between June 30th and July 2nd 1934 the SS rounded up the SA (Brown Shirts) because they were seen as a threat to Hitlers regime along with Socialists, Communists, Liberals, Intellectuals and anyone seen as a threat to Hitler's regime.
Scootertuner1000 1 year ago
I am a national socialist, i loved liberal fascism, and I liked this vid. unlike most of the modern left i am confident in my position enough to not fall apart like hormonal teen when my beliefs are questioned. and even though Im still learning i prefer to argue respectfully and calmly with those who totally disagree with me than to preach to the already "socialist" choir! the problem with the left today is we can not convey our message with reverting to anger, name calling, and tantrums!
thewaterwillcome 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome Why are you a national socialist? That seems like a horrible ideology. I like my personal freedom, thank you. And I like the Jews too, I want them to be around.
LaughingMage 1 year ago
@thewaterwillcome The problem with ‘post-modern’ society is there are too many people with nothing meaningful to do, building ‘careers’ around controlling the lives of others and generally making social nuisances of themselves. They justify their meddling by discovering social ‘problems’ and getting the media to magnify them out of all proportion." -Graham Strachan
spgfld1903 1 year ago
@spgfld1903 You talk about socialists controlling the lives of others, yet every law that regulating what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, who can get married or adopt, what people can put into their own bodies, what health decisions a woman can make, who can choose to end their lives, and what languages can be spoken in government buildings are from the right wing, so don't talk to me about controlling people's lives.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia not here they dont... liberals are really communists, but to pussy to call it that..so they use liberars or democrats...notice democrats & "DEMON are REAL close..must be a reason...we will LET you make up bullshit laws & rules for yourselves..we will stay free..hows that sound? in your statement...WHY DO YOU THINK AMERICA JOINED FORCES..LIKE TEA PARTIES ETC...TO FIGHT TYRANNY..IF NOT WE WOULD JUST MOVE ALONG LIKE CATTLE.....BRACE FOR IT...PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP!!
spgfld1903 1 year ago
@spgfld1903 liberals can never be Communist, they are too cowardly to fight the powers-that-be they can never be radical. as for the demens part your being silly.
Here's a fact of the day: did you know that Stalin is the main reason the Tea Party gets it's funding, Koch industries made it's money working for the Soviet Union during the first 5 year plan, without Stalin the teabaggers wouldn't get half the funding they do.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can't be a Liberal and a Fascist you are EITHER a liberal or a fascist. Fail.
coolsteven2 1 year ago
I like the chapter 1960s: Fascism takes to the street.
When the new edition comes out there is going to be a few more chapters like, 1970s: Fascism tears the roof off the mother
jetmtn 1 year ago
It's way more complicated than just saying liberalism = fascism. The book is based on blanket political definitions which change year to year, country to country. Early progressivism is way different than progresivism is now. Socialism is a totally useless term that means everything from any type of government program to communist doctrine. Fascists were in many ways the direct opposite of liberals anti multiculturalism, rascism, pro masculine government
jrmsher33 1 year ago
wow, its like you seen into the future ;) but obamas youth brigade do have a black and red clothing range, black boots too, atypical fascist attire.
therhythmicmenace 1 year ago
Liberalism: the belief in the importance of liberty and equality.
Fascism: authoritarian nationalism
How are they alike?
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia Liberalism is statism. You want the government to do everything. You allocate to them all of our wealth and they respond by crafting thousands of pages of laws and regulations over our behalf. The average leftist wouldn't know freedom from honor or truth. Our leftists are not nationalists, they're internationalists so I think ITZI is a better term than the one from the thirties. I agree though I only say leftist or statist. They're never liberal about anything.
pinegrove33 1 year ago 3
@pinegrove33 It's something that I found about you CONservatives you advocate smaller government, but firmly support laws regulating what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, who can get married or adopt, what people can put into their own bodies, what health decisions a woman can make, who can choose to end their lives, and what languages can be spoken in government buildings so don't talk to me about controlling people's lives.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia You're lying.I don't care what you do in your bedroom.We have a 3.5 Trillion dollar state.I'd cut it to 1 Trillion and there'd be no room for bedroom checks or fascism or much else but the basics.We have endless bureaucracies here full of fascists here. Let's get rid of them and give the money back to the people. You go ahead and marry a gerbil for all I care and you can adopt one too. None of your arguments apply with a state one-fourth of the size that we have now.
pinegrove33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pinegrove33 Lying? then who supported prop 8 and other homophobic laws because I know it wasn't liberals or leftists.
you wanna cut state spending why not your military budget which is now more then the rest of the world put together.
what endless bureaucracie your Country has far far lest Bureaucracy then any
European country.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pinegrove33 @pinegrove33 Lying? then who supported prop 8 and other homophobic laws because I know it wasn't liberals or leftists.
you wanna cut state spending why not your military budget which is now more then the rest of the world put together.
what endless bureaucracie your Country has far far lest Bureaucracy then any
European country.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@pinegrove33 THANK YOU for dispelling that stupid myth that true conservatives want to run people's lives.
LaughingMage 1 year ago
@LaughingMage Amen Conservative just want to do warrantless surveillance to make sure you not a terrorist
istraight1 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia I don't think conservative would care what you put in your bodies, if they weren't concerned with have to pay for your shelter, healthcare, food, etc. "Health decisions a woman can make", why not just say kill your unborn child. That's what your talking about. Languages, lets see, the drivers tests is provided in 19 languages but the street signs are only in English. Can you immigrate to China and demand that they print all their government documents in English just 4 u?
kbar8888 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia
[Liberalism: the belief in the importance of liberty and equality.
Fascism: authoritarian nationalism
How are they alike?]
True the modern day liberal is pro equality. But it is a very different equality than the Founders had in mind. Liberals view an equality of all people on financial, social, and educational terms. The founders viewed equality in God's eyes. So the modern day liberal will tax the "rich" and welfare out money to equalize everyone. Which reduces liberty.
aaronaarestad 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia I have never really found that people on the left really put this into practice. Most of the stuff they campaign on actually increases the power of the government yet still want to think that more laws and restrictions create a freer society.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn was people on the left who set things like the patriot act? was it the left who wanted to keep jim crow laws in place? was the left who started this stupid war on terror?
NO!
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia I believe the war on terror was started by terrorist who crashed two airplanes into the twin towers. That and other examples you said are not examples of fascism. Just bad laws but fascist were all socialist. Hitler was a National SOCIALIST, Musilini was in the socialist party, and the communist were also socialist. The progressives got all their political thinking from the same thinking that inspired fascist.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn No the war of terror was started by Reagan giving billions to the Mujahideen.
By that very same logic the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democray, Mussolini was killed and hung by communist partisans. Who fought fascism every step of the way during the 1920s 30s and 40s socialists, the conservatives were more the willing to support fascism.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia YOu mean that conservatives would actually support national SOCIALISM or a guy who was a part of the italian socialist party. That fits the mold...
Communist and fascist routinely fought each other and even worked together to get the same result. The communist helped the NAZIs get into power thinking that once hitler got it started they could take over later on. They could do that because both were almost identical to each other.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn To quote Churchill, Fascism has rendered a service to the entire world, Daily Mail owner Lord Rothermere praising British Union of Fascists leader Mosley for his sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine.
If you read history the communist party of of germany was banned by the nazis after they were blamed for the Reichstag fire.
go to my channel comment section and look at the newest comments and you will see that communists and nazis are complete opposites.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia They were so different from each other the NAZIs were able to attract other communist. Once they got into power they went after the communist party simply because both were competing for the same spot. They also went after Jews, liberal democrats, and everyone that got in their way else so its not like the communist party was special.
The same thing happen in communist Russia. Anyone who got in the way were put in the gulog and I assume that includes 'fascist'.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn But the Communist Party was the frist victim of the Nazis, they burned the reichstag for an excuse to ban the Communist Party, they didn't got that far to ban the Liberal or social democratic parties, the communists are Trade Unions were the biggest and most organised groups against the Nazis, once they were killed off it was easy to get to the rest of groups against them.
I aint gonna defent stalin so don't try to make me.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia How does order of prosecution change anything? Hitler could have went after the communist last. Would that change anything? Maybe he thought it was better to get rid of his political rivals first so he could remove any competition.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn because he got rid of the people who were the biggest threat to him FIRST!
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia duh! but so did the communist. When lenin took over he instituted the red terror and purged all counter-revolutionary activities. Political opponents were killed just like the NAZIs did to their rivals. It wasn't different.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn There was civil war at the time! the counter-revolutionaries were trying to destroy the RSFSR, it was very different.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia counter-revolutionary activities were usually defined as being a part of a newspaper that opposed the new government. In most civil wars its just people who took up arms against the state not had different ideas than the new thought mold that took over.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn No the counter-revolutionies of the didn't need newspapers, they had the backing of the United States and most of europe, they had been the state before the revolution, I know non-American history is very hard for an American to get your head round but do try.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia I feel the frustration from you. Its usually sign I'm winning. I've been pretty cool on this end. Here is one more fact. Most of the boulshivicks actually discussed killing millions of people systematically simply because they didn't want to "advance" according to the soviet philosophy. Fascist did the same thing but most used more coercive techniques than the communist. In some ways, the communist were far worst than fascist like Mussilini
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn No it's a sign that your stupidity is annoying me. For starters it's spelt Bolshevik not
boulshivicks, second no were have I heard that the the soviet goverment discussed killing simply because they didn't want to advance. not even the most lie filled anti soviet propaganda has said that, so I'm guessing your just make up history here..
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia No I actually read it. Did you know that the liberal democrats actually held power at first but the Bolsheviks actually forcefully took over after they realized they couldn't get anyone to vote them into power. I believe many white Russians leaders fled and lived here in the United States until they died.
It just seems odd that the mass killings seem to continue up until the 1950s.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn The provisional government was unpopular at the time of october revolution because they wouldn't pull out of ww1, the Bolsheviks were also attacked and many were killed by the provisional government before the revolution, just look up July Days.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia Did they actually want to mass exterminate people?
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn provisional government or Bolsheviks?
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia It was bolshevicks. The provisional government, I believe, had liberal democrats that were normal people.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn Sure the provisional government were 'liberal democrats' but they firstly land owning capitalists, who put the needs of themselves before the needs of the People, hardly normal people.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia People who actually respected the property rights of each person. They weren't interested in making laws that forcefully transferred the property of one to another. I call them normal because normal and ethical human beings don't try to forcefully transfer other people's property to another person or to themselves.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn But 95% of Russians at the time didn't own property, their were property!
Marxism isn't about giving other people's property to another person, it's about taking from those who own and giving to people that work.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia and that exposeses the totalitarianism behind it all. Individuals aren't free to decide to do with their own property or even their own lives. It has to be decided for them and in order to do this they have to destroy the rights of each person over their own property in that society.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn Individuals aren't free to decide to do with their own property in first place! you and I and everyone we know personally don't own property we are property, only around 5% of the world's population can truly be said to own property.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia That is something I agree with you on some level. We are property but we are our own property. That was established by nature and everything we produce with that property is also our own such as the material goods in this world. We own our own labor as well as our own person so anything produced by that labor is ours as well. Its when the state begins to deny that our property is our own that abuses begin to occur.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn But that's not how it is, what we produce is not our property it becomes the property of our boss.
Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia Are you saying that the computer you typed that out on belonged to your employer? If so, did you have to ask his permission to use his computer?
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn Well for starters I'm using my laptop not a computer at work, but you would need permission to use this computer if it was a workplace one, they don't let anyone walk in and use the computers
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia I assumed you were using your own computer which you don't need anyone elses permission to use. Your bosses computer you do need permission because it is his but if your boss decided to use your computer then he would need your permission. The right of property gave each of you the power to reject the other's demand which preserves the freedom of both.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn Well no if you reject your boss's demands their can fire you, if your boss rejects your demands you can't fire them.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia I believe contract law would stop that. You signed a contract (or agreement) between you and your employer. it states what you must do and what he must do. What you do with your computer at home or anywhere else is within the scope of the agreement. I'm assuming that you did not agree to let your boss use your computer so what control does someone have over your property that you did not previously agree to?
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn Yeah but it doesn't stop the boss from royally shafting people. The fact remains that the boss has power over you no matter what contract you have.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia But can they use that power without your consent? Can he tell you what to do in your home when not at work? Did he have the power to command you before and after employment?
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn They can use that power without consent because we live in a hierarchical society, the one's at the top have power over thoses at the bottom.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia In other words, your boss can just grab people off of the street and force them to work for him against their free-will? Does that actually happen in real life?
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn The Boss doesn't need to grab people off of the street (as they used to) they hasve power over a person's pay which means they little choice than to work for them.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia Of course they do. It was their property and they give it to you. Once it is yours you can do whatever you want. You have to ask them for work which gives them power but they also do a fair amount of asking themselves which is why they put out want adds. Its an agreement between two people. There is no cumpulsion between exerted between two parties since both parties can decide on their own what they want to give to the other side.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn No they don't, It's their property and they use others to run it, if you were to do whatever you want you would be fired. they put out want adds because they need others to do their work for them, the fact remains that the party with money hows powere other the party without money.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia Of course, thats because they pay you to do certain things which you freely agreed to do unless you are still sticking to the idea that they have somehow enslaved you. Are you isisting that you live under slavery?
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn We are enslaved we are wage slaves, we work not for ourselfs but someone else who owns what we work and we get paid only a small amount of what is made.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia Who said what was produced was yours? Did you purchase the raw materials or did you just do what you were told to make it? You may control the rights to your labor and sell it to whoever you want but you do not own the rights to what is produced. That is owned by the owner.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn Because it was your and others labour that when into making said product not the owner of the factory, who got the raw materials frist place, Workers.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia I asked it if was YOURS which does not refer to the collective ownership of the working masses. A worker mined, a manager made sure it was shipped, a truck drive roled it to the factory, until it was worked on by the worker. In each stage of the transportation the property belonged to one individual who happen to own it at one particular part of the cycle. The said worker never owned it because it was never given to the worker in the first place.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn But they don't own it, they are only there to work the means of production, they don't own them a capitalist owns the means
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia At any one point of the deliverty the material always belonged to an individual. It never belonged to more than one person or to society itself. It was transferred to the owners who happen to be the factory owner. The factory owner transferred ownership to the consumer. The raw materials never belonged to more than one individual at a time and the individual decided who they were to give it to. That determined the ownership of the property.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn Just because it was owned by an individual it doesn't mean that individual put their labour into it.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia They gave the person money or transferred something they had in order to get that property. That money they got they labored for which was given to them by someone else.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn But they only get a small amount of the capital from their labour most of the capital goes to the person who owns not who works
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@timbosforporn Except it hasn't. How do you think capitalism started? What determined who was a property owner and who wasn't? Was it merit, or was it tyranny? Under feudalism peasants were forced to work the land while their lords extracted rent. With capitalism, many were thrown off the land and left with no choice but to work in factories as they were left owning nothing but their ability to work. There's nothing just or natural about that.
Schniddo 9 months ago
@robertrulebirtannia equality and liberty can't exist together. its either liberty and personal responsibility or equality and poverty. you can't expect people to work hard if there are no insentives to better there own situation
mikeseidlling 1 year ago
@mikeseidlling If I may quote Martin Luther King
"What good is having the right to sit at a lunch counter if you can't afford to buy a hamburger?"
it isn't a choice for one or the other you can have both.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia NO LIBERAL I KNOW WANTS THAT..THE LIBERALS I KNOW WANT SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, BUT MOST OF ALL POWER TO CONTROL,AND MEDDEL INTO THE LIVES OF EVERYONE ELSE BUSINESS!!
spgfld1903 1 year ago
@spgfld1903 you advocate smaller government, but firmly support laws regulating what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, who can get married or adopt, what people can put into their own bodies, what health decisions a woman can make, who can choose to end their lives, and what languages can be spoken in government buildings so don't talk to me about controlling people's lives.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia i am for NO CONTROL...FUCK EVERYONE..I AM FREE ANY FOOL THAT WANTS TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO..WHAT TO WEAR..HOW TO SPEND HIS MONEY..AND EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD MOVE TO A COMMUNIST COUNTRY..THERE ARE PLENTY OUT THERE..RUN BY THEIR GOVT..CAUSE THEY DONT WORK...ILL KEEP MY FREEDOM...LONG LIVE FREEDOM & REAL MEN WILLING TO FIGHT FOR IT!!
spgfld1903 1 year ago
@spgfld1903 Turn the cap lock off I can read lower case.
Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
The problem with ‘a socialism’ society is there are too many people with nothing meaningful to do, building ‘careers’ around controlling the lives of others and generally making social nuisances of themselves. They justify their meddling by discovering social ‘problems’ and getting the media to magnify them out of all proportion." -Graham Strachan
spgfld1903 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia {Liberalism: the belief in the importance of liberty and equality. Fascism: authoritarian nationalism}
Allow me.
Liberalism=Marxism=Being allowed to use big govt to take from others to satisfy your needs by.... FASCISTS who also want big government to suppress individual economic independence and pursue imperialism and monopoly.
This is why the bankers funded the communist revolution.
This is why the middle class is being destroyed.
mindprism 1 year ago
@mindprism Liberalism isn't Marxism, Marxists would laugh in your face if you said that to them. Liberalism isn't willingly to fight the powers that be.
Fascists want to turn things back to the days of imperialism and colonialism not go forward as Marxosm wants.
You talk about s controlling the lives of others, yet every law that regulating what people can do in their personal life are from the right wing, so don't talk to me about controlling people's lives.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia What they call liberalism today is Marxism. The formal liberalism is called libertarianism.
My point is that the fascist element uses the govt dependency created by the Marxist element as a shield that prevents the dismantling of govt. And yes, esp in the US we have a problem with religious fascism -- Christianity and Zionism.
The way out is to assume the political polyglot that the US was designed to be - an esp small central govt
mindprism 1 year ago
@mindprism Read the Manifesto before you start making up bullshit, liberals aren't marxist, they lack everything that it means to be a Marxist. libertarianism is anarchy for rich people. fascism isn't about making people dependen on the goverment it's about setting one group of people high up and makingb the rest their slaves. if you read Marx's he says that the workers have to dismantle the old goverment in order to build a new society.
No one more for big goverment then people like you.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" -- Karl Marx, one of his most famous slogans.
So if current liberals are not for creating dependency on govt, name three programs they have dismantled in the last 50 years. Then name how many they have created.
mindprism 1 year ago
@mindprism It's a famous slogan but few people know what it means, it means every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs.
what does that have to do with dependency on the goverment.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia {what does that have to do with dependency on the goverment.}
We have been following that Marxist doctrine more and more over the last 100 years. All countries have, and all countries are now broke, and have thereby enslaved their populations in perpetuity. We are on the brink of worldwide revolt and tremendous violence looms at humanity.
The die is cast. But I doubt you acknowledge any of that. You will see, just remember to praise your hero Marx when it comes about.
mindprism 1 year ago
@mindprism Your tin foil hat has fallen off.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia
Pentagon resources and U.S. troops may be used if needed to quell protests and bank runs during an economic crisis, the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Institute reported.
"Widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security," the War College study states.
Yea- those at the Defence dept agree with me. Did their hat fall off too?
mindprism 1 year ago
@mindprism what does this have to do with your 'We have been following that Marxist doctrine more and more over the last 100 years' conspiracy theory, any goverment no matter it's type would use troops if Widespread civil violence broke out.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia Its not a conspiracy theory, go read the 10 planks of the communist manifesto and you will see that we have been steadily implementing these policies. And it relates to civil violence because these policies are antithetical to the Constitution and represent an OVERTHROW of our govt. THAT is what is pissing people off.
mindprism 1 year ago
@mindprism I’ve read the manifesto, the ’10 planks’ as you call them is Marx’s idea of changing the mode of production from capitalism to common ownership (something you would benefit from) only one of the ‘planks’ could really be said to be put in place.
No take your 200 years out of date Constitution and jack off to it.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia {common ownership (something you would benefit from)}
The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will ultimately deplete a shared limited resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.
Communism does not work.
See: Jacob Schiff, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, Bolshevik revolution
mindprism 1 year ago
@mindprism No common ownership means all people have a say in how a business not just one.
So Capitalists fund communists, right... you tin foil hat has come loss again
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia At its heart, Communism is a system of social control and oppression dedicated to smashing the pillars of western civilization: nationhood, democracy, Christianity and the nuclear family. It cares for no other principle than raw power and exercises it ruthlessly.
Vladimir Lenin owned nine Rolls-Royces during his Soviet leadership.
Communism is a fraud, babycakes. I know that makes you sad but thats the truth.
mindprism 1 year ago
@mindprism To smash the pillars of western civilization would be a good thing, to end nationhood is to end war, we don't have democracy all we have is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, your the one who hates family not me, I want to the whole world to be one family, you hate any family that isn't in your image and there are many Socialists who are religious.
Lenin never owned a car the only car he ever used were state owned.
Capitalism is a fraud it only give the rich power
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia {I want to the whole world to be one family, you hate any family that isn't in your image}
I believe in freedom of association. You believe that anyone who doesn't want to be in your big family is evil, and cannot be tolerated. You won't be happy until everyone is doing things your way. You are a totalitarian.
If your ideas are so good- show me where. Where is this big happy family you have going. I'm sure if it exists everyone would be glad to join.
mindprism 1 year ago
@mindprism They wouldn't have a choice the same way we don't have a choice now, we have to be citizen of a nation or we can't do anything. they have to be citizens of the world lest we fall back into the old way of doing things. if anything your totalitarian you want to keep people locked up in borders and forever fighting over land I want all that to end and the whole of humanity to live in peace and cooperation.
What about Cuba were ever one has the right to go to school and have health care.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia {your totalitarian you want to keep people locked up in borders}
No I don't. Ironically I was about to ask you why you dont move to Cuba or somewhere where you can be among others who think the same as you do -- help them build your communist paradise and 'show the world' how its done.
This obviously isn't the country for you. So go be with your comrades and leave us in peace. If I knew of a more free place I would go there.
mindprism 1 year ago
@mindprism I would move to Cuba but don't have the money and I don't speck Spanish.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
@robertrulebirtannia Sorry, but your reasons are flimsy. If you wanted to move to Cuba you could study spanish and save the money. Neither of these are hard. Cuba isn't that far.
mindprism 1 year ago
@mindprism Also moving to Cuba wouldn't fix the problems back home.
True Cuba is that far for you, but I live in the United Kingdom which is on the other side of the Atlantic.
robertrulebirtannia 1 year ago
It is true that Fascism is often misused today, but Goldberg's understanding of Fascism is limited as well. He ignores the anti-intellectual elements of Fascism, the intense nationalism and the anti-pluralism elements of Fascism.
sighedeffects 1 year ago 7
@sighedeffects You missed the point of his book that he was making. The left is intensely nationalist but not in a classical fascist way. They no longer have to be the strongest but have to be the number one in education, health care, and anything else. You don't know notice how many times left wing (and right wing) news outlets runs a story about how America is #10 in something. Its fascism in that it exalts national goals above individual interest.
timbosforporn 1 year ago
@timbosforporn Fascism does contain elements of extreme fascism but that is not the only element of fascism. Goldberg tries to equate two diametrically opposed ideologies. Farther, although sometimes the argument can be made that the totalitarian forms of far Left governments resemble fascist governments, Liberalism is not even "Far Left."
sighedeffects 1 year ago
@timbosforporn As far as the ranking about education or health care, I think the point is less about competition and more about standing. A country that holds a majority of the wealth in the world is seriously lacking in standards of care, has a higher infant mortality rate, lower life expectancy and low literacy . . . but the United States is still number 1 in incarceration rates.
sighedeffects 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don't eat meat. If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
why760nitro 1 year ago
@why760nitro You mean like the conservatives that want to make it illegal for gays to be married because they disagree with it? Or the conservatives that want to tell people when they have the right to control their bodies? (state execution, abortion, right to die) - reality is really much more complicated then some dialectic exercise of "us versus them" rhetoric.
sighedeffects 1 year ago
I don't agree with all of your views, but I'm glad to see a conservative making a good, logical, rhetoric free argument! Enough of glen back, go you!
nickelisio 1 year ago
if the USA implements health reforms this will be like fastening Dracula to your carotid artery !
in Australia the aging war generation is calling on increasingly on the "free" health system here and bankrupting the state purse in doing so
the drawdown is phenomenal
shazam20007 1 year ago
Feminist - For Every MIstake & Nonsense I Stand Tall
Feminism - Finding Every MIstake & Nonsense I Should Make
- Prassoon Suryadas
kochiBoy 1 year ago
the man has an opposite ideology to my own but he gives a convincing argument. And its nice to finally hear someones opinion and have then not shout in your face and throw insults at you.
trekkie108 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i AM THE RESULT OF ARIANS GENES in 1935 and im italian . im handsome and have high intellect and yes ......... i cant talk ...... because i would be censored just to be MYSELF. Hail. ------ DUX IS MY LUX ----
MarzioBalducci82 1 year ago
i AM THE RESULT OF ARIANS GENES in 1935 and im italian . im handsome and have high intellect and yes ......... i cant talk ...... because i would be censored just to be MYSELF. Hail. ------ DUX IS MY LUX ----
MarzioBalducci82 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In another comment section, for another video, one of these patriotards told me:
"Don't you know that Hitler established health care in Germany?" to compare Hitler to Obama again.
I replied: "You idiot know nothing, health care and other social securities were actually established by Bismarck, a super-conservative and socialist-hater, long before Hitler!"
That shows how dumbed down people are. But at the same time THINK they know everything.
WUNDENFLAMME 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
These mind slaves know nothing about history and the achievements of nationalsocialism.
They don't understand that social securities and healthcare do actually work in a HOMOGENOUS society. It starts to malfunction when xenogeneric elements are implanted into this society.
They can't comprehend that, because they're brainwashed.
WUNDENFLAMME 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All this idiots who mistake Nationalsocialism with Facsism and compare it to Liberalism, or Hitler to Obama, know chicken shit.
It's because the "ministry of words", out of 1984, minimized their grammar
and so they compare everything "evil" to fascism.
The word Bolshevism is deleted from their brains, even the word totalitarism.
Everything is Facsism, Facsism, Facsism, Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.
"Double plus good".
Dumbed down mind slaves.
WUNDENFLAMME 1 year ago
seek to create a collective of one out of each person in society
timbosforporn 1 year ago
Bernard. You need your own TV show.
Keep up the great work brother.
skiblueme 1 year ago
EXCELLENT! Keep up the good work bernard , you do know your stuff!!
ChupacabraYetiElmo 1 year ago
How come Goldberg does not discuss Franco, like he gave time to Hitler, Mussolini, Wilson and Roosevelt?
Rsd79 1 year ago
Social, political and moral ideals are a consecuence of fear. Defending ideals over reasoning and understanding is just avoiding the reality, avoiding the real problem, avoiding the present. Ideals are precisely the cause of all of our social problems because they give purpose to this famous quote: "The end justifies the means".
It is time to abandon our ideals and look for real solutions. Long live to reasoning!
S1L3nCe 1 year ago
I've been saying this for years, it's true. Not to mention the Democrats hanging and lynching black republicans during the early 1900s.
LANSING52 2 years ago 3
The American Sandwich
a little Nazi on one slice ,a little Communism on the other slice , with a lot of Fascism in the middle. Add Mayo with 40% Black olives
Voila
dave777blaster 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch this video of Hitler, Stalin & Chinese Democracy admirers in support of the Global Warming Soviet style Pseudo-science
Input
"Socialists and Communists march to support global warming agenda"
Having Railroad conductors, IMF economists & foot doctors as climate experts is reminiscent of the pseudo sciences of the former Soviet Union
These frauds should be operating a Model Railroad Club, not a Pseudo-science
Thisawareness 2 years ago
the typical mode of government nowadays in the West is latter day Fascism
a two tiered system extolling one - wimyn and trashing men
men in the West are typically fitted with a peonage yoke - he pays her child maintenance with little access n pays her alimony and lives like a dog there after :)
at her behest
shazam20007 2 years ago
Enverpasha55: Fat is a necessary nutrient. Fat is particularly critical for good brain development and function; particularly in children. Children that are deprived of fat have lower IQs and higher rates of mental illness. Apparently youre a couch potato that tries to control your weight by reducing your fat intake; which would explain youre not being able to comprehend/conclude on your own that many of the current definitions of fascism are dishonest miss nomenclature.
Schemefighter 2 years ago
Enverpasha55 Ive seen villages of Eskimos whoms diet virtually was almost entirely blubber; yet they were not excessively fat, their cholesterol was low, they had lower rates of heart attacks and strokes. They were healthy because it was cold and they had to work extremely hard. The Eskimos that were put on reservations and ate more healthy food actually became fatter and had higher cholesterol and had higher rates of strokes and heart attacks; because they became couch potatoes on the dole
Schemefighter 2 years ago
Enverpasha55 A small sin tax on a few items can be reasonable. However its a slippery slope. Regrettably like a fascist sheep you have subscribed to the slippery slope. Making a sin tax on fats, sugar, and caffeine is unreasonable and fascist. People arent fat because of food; youre fat because youre lazy. More people are fat now because more people are lazy; instead of going out and working and/or playing real sports; they vegetate in front of a TV or computer.
Schemefighter 2 years ago
I disagree with your terminology of "laziness". I do not believe that sitting in front a TV or a computer screen can be default be termed "lazy". This is unfair to the multitude of attention whores on youtube and the internet the world of over. It would be far more accurate to say that people are fat because their energy intake far exceeds any effort on their behalf to lose it.
Xtro2005 2 years ago
Enverpasha55 the fascist liberals have dishonestly changed the definition of the word fascist; to draw a way attention of their own sins. Thats one of the signs of fascism; manipulating the media, rewriting history, redefining words to be more politically correct. Its all part of the fascist indoctrination.
Schemefighter 2 years ago
Enverpasha55 the definition in some of the new dictionaries are obvious miss nomenclature. If you look at an older dictionary there is no right wing in the definition. The Nazis and the Fascisti were socialists; much like liberals/Democrats. Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' party of Germany. The Fascisti had a blend of socialism and capitalism; much like Obama is doing with the automotive industry, health-insurance industry, banking industry, ect
Schemefighter 2 years ago
Its called individual responsibility....
The left couldnt give a rats ass about anyones health- if they really thought tobacco was sooo bad, they would simply BAN it, wouldnt they? wouldnt that save more lives than just taxing it?
This is all about raising more revenue to expanded an already bloated govt.
bucs2921 2 years ago
Would they ever be allowed to ban it?
tumadros 2 years ago
Good video.
RomascuCristi 2 years ago
That was one of the better books i've ever read. I would highly reccomend it.
conorhennessey 2 years ago
Nice book review, just heard about it today on a Glen Beck interview of the author. I need to pick it up.
joker102877 2 years ago
Oh right ? And what about liberals passing laws telling churches what they are not to say about "gays" even tho' it is defined clearly in the bible ? There is a liberal in the UK parliament who wants to even moderate what people say in private conversations ! Liberals( so called, actually, mis-called) are fascists alright.
therockfisher 2 years ago
Liberals are all for tolerance so long as you agree with them.
Vedaseran 2 years ago
There has not been ONE liberal that I have ever met that knew how to-MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.
Rush Limbaugh and Micheal Savage have both said it.
Liberals CANNOT be happy.
Conservatives ARE happier.
Liberals think that makes us STUPID, SELFISH and UNCARING about others.
Of course NOTHING could be further from the truth.
Great commentary, and NOW I'm going to the library to get Jonahs book.
NoCensorshipYT 2 years ago
Right on..
Look at obama's plans for big tobacco...Libs preach tolerance, but if you practice a habit like smoking that they can tax, they throw tolerance right out the window in favor of expanding government and increasing tax revenues.
Its nonsense (and I'm not even a smoker, but I dont care what other people do with their money)
bucs2921 2 years ago
"Fascism, Socialism"or a blending of the two all mean the same thing! We the people get screwed either way assclown! now get back in your box bitch!
Mrcharliebobo 2 years ago
Its not a facism like Hitler not yet anyway. Its a slow tyranny, to quote Mark Levin. Its the govt regulating what you do and how you do it. Facism can come in many forms. Example, govt regulating healthcare, the govt can decide, you smoke you shouldn't get that lung transplant that could save your life because your gonna die anyway. If the govt controls things like healthcare they can control every aspect of your freedom to choose, thats what this facism means.
Shadyac21 2 years ago
Well said! cant wait to read the book
dozer765 2 years ago
"I wasn't sure what I would find, but my concerns were unfounded..." HAHA!
NaytronNeanderer 2 years ago
we don't have an imperialist agenda. The left seeks to punish Americans for their choices. Consider "cap and steal" or socialized health care which is on the menu now. Taxes to perfect our lives on transfats to tobacco to soda. The bigger the federal government gets the less freedom we have. The money that we makes is ours. It does not belong to the government to redistribute--i.e. steal from the people to give to the government.
pinegrove33 2 years ago
@pinegrove33 Yeah, Obama thinks he fucking Robin Hood and shit. He certainly has a lot of merry men (Kagen, Pelosi, Nepalitano)
Iaen 1 year ago
Yes clearly hating modern liberals because of things Progressives did is completely logical and in no way a fallacy.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
Hating has nothing to do with it. That's a strawman argument. In order to judge the left and fully understand their anti-freedom agenda it's imperative to know from where their movement arose.
pinegrove33 2 years ago 6
Got Buttsore?
When modern Liberals speak the same language, quote the same authors, seek to perform social engineering as Progressives, it's not a logical fallacy. At that point it becomes a direct comparison.
thomaserossi 2 years ago
Hitler hated EVERYBODY!!
garyduncil 2 years ago
Nailed it. Great video. Very well done. People need to look at the history of every idea the progressives have pushed on us and does not exist in the Constitution. Why do we have the prohibition of booze in our Constitution but after that the Government now just does what it wants to us in the name of the Constitution. All Federal Law should be strictly outlined in the Constitution. Thats so when retards like progressives have the state block human rights we need a record of it to show it
HHODork 2 years ago
The funny thing is that fascism was born out of socialism. I think Karl Marx was a big influence on Hitler when Marx wrote this: 'The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life most give way. They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Sounds like Hitler studied Marx quite well.
willmickel71 2 years ago
Actually Hitler hated Marxists. The Nazis killed thousands of Marxists, and right wing Freikorps militias who later supported Hitler put down socialist uprisings. Although Nazi means National Socialist, the name is a misnomer. Hitler's policy's were not socialist at all. He wanted a traditionalist authoritarian state, not a socialist one. He sent troops to kill socialist revolutionaries during the Spanish Civil War. Get your facts right before you take a quote out of context.
lalalaboomdeeay 2 years ago