U.S. and British were disgusting traitors, but believed them to Car betrayal, Custom English cousin of the king it brutally betrayal.Car hast kept nobility, honor and dignity to the end, he and his family are heroes! Sorry for my bad English,iam from Czech.
One should also take into consideration that only 7 percent of the members of the NSDAP could be classified as "upper crust," and that an overwhelming part of the members of the NSDAP were lower middle class. The National Socialists at very least marketed themselves as being socialists who were concerned primarily about the interests of the lower middle class.
Why is it always 'anti-Semitic' to say that Bolshevism was mainly 'Jewish'? It's no different than saying 98% of all serial-killers are white males, it's just a plain statistical observation. Why are they always applying these double standards to themselves? I've never discriminated against anyone but there is something inherently wrong with the way Jews regard us (gentiles) and how they view themselves as natural elites amongst us. I'm so sick of these double standards.
@GodOfTheInternets and to be honest, when has there EVER been a true communist state? what country did the exact thing Marx told them to do? not. one. why? because the communist manifesto is nothing but a fairy tale written by 2 men with vivid imaginations. and hey, the only communist who spoke words that actually came true was Trotsky. "if there is no world revolution, communism in Russia will fall" (or something like that)
@GodOfTheInternets so let me get this straight; just because a communist says "communism is a stateless and classless society" it makes it 100% true? you need to get your head out of the ground and face the facts. no, communism may not be nationalist but it does sometime require a dictatorship. just look at the Nazi Germany & the USSR for example. both countries had totalitarian dictatorships. Hitler & Stalin would've remained good friends if hitler hadn't gone with operation barborossa
communism is no different from fascism. in fact, they're the same. they both impose tyranny and kill, imprison and torture innocent civilians for criticizing the government. funny thing is that their sworn enemies all because Hitler invaded the USSR. if Hitler would've sticked to his friendship with Stalin, both of them would conquer the world with their dreadful regimes and the botherhood between the Nazis and the Communists would be exposed.
@Super1776Patriot Both of these ideologies are based on the ideals of the French Revolution. Most of the problems we face today can be traced back to 1789.
@ImperialRussianGuard Actually every modern ideologies is a product of the French Revolution. Hence, which is why we have modern Democracy, Liberalism, Nationalism, Socialism, Libertarians, ect. The only ideologies pre to the French and American Revolution are Autocracy and Feudalism. So unless you like to suck the balls of a King or the local lord for some food, don't cry about modern ideologies.
While the most despicable ideologies, such as Communism and National Socialism, are based on the ideas of the French revolution,more intellectually serious ones such as classical liberalism (libertarianism), were not. In fact,many 19th century intellectuals bashed the French revolution for its tyrannical nature.I find it amusing that you claim that autocracy and feudalism are ideologies.One is a system of government and the other is political and economic system.So in other words, you are wrong.
@ImperialRussianGuard National Socialism wasn't base from the French Revolution, it was base from century old paranoia of the Jewish people along with the myth of a master race. Communism was base on the Paris commune not the Revolution itself.
@lilhavanaboys National Socialism was strongly influenced by the anti-clericalism and anti-aristocratic sentiment, populism, and nationalism of the French revolution.
@Super1776Patriot Actually, Fascism is a Ultra Nationalistic ideal where Church and state mix. Corporate power is protected and private property is defended. Which is why the Fascist in Italy gain their support from the ruling families and not the Socialist nor peasants. Fascism was actually supported by the United States. Which is why you got so many companies that made investments and business deals with both nations.
The ruling families never supported Mussolini. Although the it was the King who ultimately consented to giving Mussolini power, he did not do so out of sympathy to Fascism. He did it because armed Fascist mobs roamed the streets of Rome, threatening Italy with the prospect of throwing Italy into a large scale civil war. Italy was in a difficult place financially at the time and a civil war would have brought Italy to near ruins.
However, even after Mussolini came to power, he held a grudge against him. There was very little that the King could do to stop Mussolini at the height of his power and popularity. Mussolini seized so much power, that the King was reduced to a merely symbolic figure. The only thing the King could would be to dismiss him from office, but even then he needed to have the support of the Fascist Grand Council, which was body was controlled by and answered to Mussolini.
Nonetheless the King waited for the right moment to strike Mussolini down. In July 1943, when military defeats had made Mussolini unpopular amongst many members of his own party, the King summoned the Fascist Grand Council in order to remove Mussolini. The council gave its overwhelming support, and the King then signed the order calling for Mussolini's arrest. The only reason he had not been able to this earlier was because he did not have the sufficient support to do so.
@ImperialRussianGuard What are you talking about? The King appointed Mussolini because he was going to throw a coup. But seeing that the nation was already in Civil war between the Nationalist and the Socialist, the King appointed Mussolini, and the Ruling families did supported him because his ideals and his actions meant to protect them from the Socialist who wanted to take their wealth and property.
You claim that the King and the Italian aristocracy were strong supporters of Mussolini. How would you explain the fact that Mussolini was overthrown in 1943 by the King and the Italian aristocracy ? If they supported him, then why would they have disposed of him. Why was the main Italian anti-fascist army during WWII, led by leading Italian aristocrats who fought in the name of the King ?
@ImperialRussianGuard As a result, corporatist policy became dominated by the industries. Throughout the Mussolini era, economic legislation mostly favored the wealthy industrial and agrarian classes by allowing privatization, liberalization of rent laws and dismantling of non-Fascist unions.
They never supported Mussolini's ideas. The King appointed Mussolini not because he supported Fascism, but because armed Blackshirts were marching the streets of Rome preparing to overthrew the government by force.Certain members of the Kings government urged him to open fire on the Fascists, but the King was concerned that such an action could spark a civil war ( and no, Italy was not in a civil war at that point).He did appoint Mussolini because he supported his ideas, but because the prospect
of civil war seemed far worse. The King expressed the reasoning behind his decision quite clearly in his memoirs. Not only is there no evidence to suggest that the King was a Fascist, there is clear evidence in primary sources which show quite the contrary. Unless you can show some primary sources to support your case, your argument will remain unconvincing.
@ImperialRussianGuard Learn a little history. Mussolini was very popular among with the ruling families and the Nationalist. Which is why 80% of Italy's farming was owned by 3% of the population from 1922 - 1936. And major car makers and large foreign investors profited off from his protection of corporate power. Not only did Mussolini crushed the Socialist uprisings, he banned their parties and arrested most of them just for being in the party.
You claim 80% of Italy's farming was owned by 3% of the population from 1922 - 1936, would you mind telling us where exactly did you get this statistic ? Also what evidence do you have to support that Mussolini was popular among the aristocracy? Since I have read several recollections of prominent members of the Italian aristocracy of that time, not a single one of them writes that there was a strong fascist sympathy amongst the Italian aristocracy. Remember, rhetoric does not count as evidence
@ImperialRussianGuard Actually many books title this, most famous work was on Nazi Germany's close relationship with western banks and local aristocrats: "Germany and big business" and I suggest you also look up Italian economics and how life was under Mussolini in Italy.
@lilhavanaboys I've actually read that book before. If find it interesting that you reference it as a source, when it argues a thesis completely contrary to yours. The author argues that the contributions of wealthy capitalists to the NSDAP were not as great as often believed to be. I will link you to a book review which reveals the books sentiments.
@ImperialRussianGuard The Nazi party associated itself with the Nationalist and as a Nationalist party. It was in support of the lower middle class because Germany was hit hard by the depression, for connivance, and tactical proposes, was that Far right wing groups started to call themselves "Social" "People's" and "Socialist" with their parties names. Some still live on today. The Social conservative party, the Christian's people's party, The Christian Democratic party.
@ImperialRussianGuard For tactical proposes, Hitler named his party the "National Socialist party" like many far right wing groups. Because they wanted public appeal and promised anything and everything to the public. Hitler abused the people's depression, and desperation to find a way out of poverty so he made every single promise he could, along with his propaganda machine (Powered by American film makers like Fox.) to get public appeal.
@ImperialRussianGuard It was also supported by the Aristocrats because Hitler promised a new currency which would be base on labor power instead of the Gold standard (Which Germany lost most of it during the first world war) So major companies also supported and funded Hitler because he was going to work on behalf of their interest.
There were people in the Italian Fascist party who didn't liked some "Left wing" economics so thus, the economic policy of corporatism quickly faltered: the left-wing elements of the Fascist manifesto were opposed by industrialists, most Nationalist and landowners who supported the party because it pledged to defend Italy from communism and socialism.
Communism is stateless and classless you tool, Marx said so, Lenin said so, Kropotkin said so, EVERY communist said so. There is no "elite" in communism.
Perhaps desire of children to differentiate themselves from their parents, congregation of people into mobs and cliques, groupthink, wolf pack mentality and other such things have much more to do with it than class struggle. (Or race or gender struggle, for that fact.)
One correction: Milyukov was no communist. He was the founder of the Constitutional Democratic party. Supporting him was supporting democracy.
There is little mistery about predicting Tsar's resignation. It was pretty obvious, as Tsar was in the train and couldn't even get home because railroad tracks were blocked by revolutionaries.
The February revolution was not a Communist revolution. The communist one took place in November.
But I agree with the main idea. Overwhelming majority of communists and leftists comes not from workers but from the rich themselves. Actually, the children of the rich. Lenin himself admitted that the revolutionaries come not from proletariat but from the bourgeoisie (or more precisely, from the relatively young children of the bourgeoisie).
If one thinks about it, one has to come to a paradoxical conclusion that though Marxism had major impact on late 19th and all of 20th century, the mechanism of it was entirely different from what Marx described.
Over two millennia ago, Aristophanes described the real mechanism in "Clouds."
Not much has changed. Today 's leftists are still backed by rich businessmen and most of their leaders are rich kids, not the workers they claim to champion. They talk about freedom, but their goal is control.
Capitalism and Communism are at root one in the same. They allow those not fit to rule dominate society. The difference between the two is simply aesthetic. Great video.
The ideal communist state is stateless as you note. While this isn't inherently bad, the sort of stateless society communists argue for is one where there is, in effect, no leader. This is what produces the unfit individual, seeing as there isn't even that.
Sorry you're not as unique or "revolutionary" as you thought. Good luck establishing an actual stateless society that somehow manages to defy nature's natural hierarchy's.
@MaoismLinBiaoism . Hey genius, maybe If you watched the video you would know that I never the said the Communist revolution happened in March. I included the letter from Jacob Schiff to show that he also played a role in the March revolution as well as the Communist revolution. I know Communists aren't very intelligent but surely you could do a better job reading.
H. H. BEAMISH, N.Y. speech, 1937 "Communism is Judaism. The Jewish Revolution in Russia was in 1918."
HILARY COTTER, author of The Truth About His Real "Crime," page 6 "Communism and Judaism are one and the same."
VLADIMIR, LENIN, Founder of Bolshevik Communist (From an article in Northern Pravda, October-December 1913, in Lenin on the Jewish Question, pg 10 'Jewish Marxists are continuing the best traditions of Jewry."
@TheBritannicRoyalist it's not the fact their are poor, is the fact that those people pretending to do the interest of poor people never suffered the disadvantages of beeing poor.Communism was just a big LIE!
Itzhak Perlman is a brilliant composer. Good video. My friend, I am currently studying Russia in my history class and would appreciate book recommendations that support the argument that Tsarism was strong in 1914. If you could help, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
@JCarradiceFrench Thank you. The one I would recommend "Nicholas and Alexandra" by Robert K.Massie. I'll find some more books to recommend to you in the future. I might make a video in the future telling the truth about Tsarist Russia.So stay tuned.
U.S. and British were disgusting traitors, but believed them to Car betrayal, Custom English cousin of the king it brutally betrayal.Car hast kept nobility, honor and dignity to the end, he and his family are heroes! Sorry for my bad English,iam from Czech.
fantomx21 1 month ago
One should also take into consideration that only 7 percent of the members of the NSDAP could be classified as "upper crust," and that an overwhelming part of the members of the NSDAP were lower middle class. The National Socialists at very least marketed themselves as being socialists who were concerned primarily about the interests of the lower middle class.
ImperialRussianGuard 2 months ago
Here are some pamphlets written by leading National Socialists
calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/haken32.htm
calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/angrif08.htm
calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goering1.htm
ImperialRussianGuard 2 months ago
Why is it always 'anti-Semitic' to say that Bolshevism was mainly 'Jewish'? It's no different than saying 98% of all serial-killers are white males, it's just a plain statistical observation. Why are they always applying these double standards to themselves? I've never discriminated against anyone but there is something inherently wrong with the way Jews regard us (gentiles) and how they view themselves as natural elites amongst us. I'm so sick of these double standards.
theone1087 2 months ago
@GodOfTheInternets and to be honest, when has there EVER been a true communist state? what country did the exact thing Marx told them to do? not. one. why? because the communist manifesto is nothing but a fairy tale written by 2 men with vivid imaginations. and hey, the only communist who spoke words that actually came true was Trotsky. "if there is no world revolution, communism in Russia will fall" (or something like that)
Super1776Patriot 2 months ago
@GodOfTheInternets so let me get this straight; just because a communist says "communism is a stateless and classless society" it makes it 100% true? you need to get your head out of the ground and face the facts. no, communism may not be nationalist but it does sometime require a dictatorship. just look at the Nazi Germany & the USSR for example. both countries had totalitarian dictatorships. Hitler & Stalin would've remained good friends if hitler hadn't gone with operation barborossa
Super1776Patriot 2 months ago
I know this is off topic, but I love the music.
xTheEmilyx 2 months ago
communism is no different from fascism. in fact, they're the same. they both impose tyranny and kill, imprison and torture innocent civilians for criticizing the government. funny thing is that their sworn enemies all because Hitler invaded the USSR. if Hitler would've sticked to his friendship with Stalin, both of them would conquer the world with their dreadful regimes and the botherhood between the Nazis and the Communists would be exposed.
Super1776Patriot 6 months ago
@Super1776Patriot Both of these ideologies are based on the ideals of the French Revolution. Most of the problems we face today can be traced back to 1789.
ImperialRussianGuard 6 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Actually every modern ideologies is a product of the French Revolution. Hence, which is why we have modern Democracy, Liberalism, Nationalism, Socialism, Libertarians, ect. The only ideologies pre to the French and American Revolution are Autocracy and Feudalism. So unless you like to suck the balls of a King or the local lord for some food, don't cry about modern ideologies.
lilhavanaboys 2 months ago
While the most despicable ideologies, such as Communism and National Socialism, are based on the ideas of the French revolution,more intellectually serious ones such as classical liberalism (libertarianism), were not. In fact,many 19th century intellectuals bashed the French revolution for its tyrannical nature.I find it amusing that you claim that autocracy and feudalism are ideologies.One is a system of government and the other is political and economic system.So in other words, you are wrong.
ImperialRussianGuard 2 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard National Socialism wasn't base from the French Revolution, it was base from century old paranoia of the Jewish people along with the myth of a master race. Communism was base on the Paris commune not the Revolution itself.
lilhavanaboys 2 months ago
@lilhavanaboys National Socialism was strongly influenced by the anti-clericalism and anti-aristocratic sentiment, populism, and nationalism of the French revolution.
ImperialRussianGuard 2 months ago
@Super1776Patriot
They are NOT the same: fascism is nationalist, based on private property, totalitarian state, and class collaboration.
Communism is internationalist, based on common ownership, is STATELESS, and CLASSLESS.
It's the EXACT opposite of each other. YOU, as a Constitutionalist judging by your name, have more in common with fascism than I, a communist.
Also, Constitutionalism is an appeal to authority fallacy.
GodOfTheInternets 2 months ago
@Super1776Patriot Actually, Fascism is a Ultra Nationalistic ideal where Church and state mix. Corporate power is protected and private property is defended. Which is why the Fascist in Italy gain their support from the ruling families and not the Socialist nor peasants. Fascism was actually supported by the United States. Which is why you got so many companies that made investments and business deals with both nations.
lilhavanaboys 2 months ago
The ruling families never supported Mussolini. Although the it was the King who ultimately consented to giving Mussolini power, he did not do so out of sympathy to Fascism. He did it because armed Fascist mobs roamed the streets of Rome, threatening Italy with the prospect of throwing Italy into a large scale civil war. Italy was in a difficult place financially at the time and a civil war would have brought Italy to near ruins.
ImperialRussianGuard 2 months ago
However, even after Mussolini came to power, he held a grudge against him. There was very little that the King could do to stop Mussolini at the height of his power and popularity. Mussolini seized so much power, that the King was reduced to a merely symbolic figure. The only thing the King could would be to dismiss him from office, but even then he needed to have the support of the Fascist Grand Council, which was body was controlled by and answered to Mussolini.
ImperialRussianGuard 2 months ago
Nonetheless the King waited for the right moment to strike Mussolini down. In July 1943, when military defeats had made Mussolini unpopular amongst many members of his own party, the King summoned the Fascist Grand Council in order to remove Mussolini. The council gave its overwhelming support, and the King then signed the order calling for Mussolini's arrest. The only reason he had not been able to this earlier was because he did not have the sufficient support to do so.
ImperialRussianGuard 2 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard What are you talking about? The King appointed Mussolini because he was going to throw a coup. But seeing that the nation was already in Civil war between the Nationalist and the Socialist, the King appointed Mussolini, and the Ruling families did supported him because his ideals and his actions meant to protect them from the Socialist who wanted to take their wealth and property.
lilhavanaboys 2 months ago
You claim that the King and the Italian aristocracy were strong supporters of Mussolini. How would you explain the fact that Mussolini was overthrown in 1943 by the King and the Italian aristocracy ? If they supported him, then why would they have disposed of him. Why was the main Italian anti-fascist army during WWII, led by leading Italian aristocrats who fought in the name of the King ?
ImperialRussianGuard 2 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard As a result, corporatist policy became dominated by the industries. Throughout the Mussolini era, economic legislation mostly favored the wealthy industrial and agrarian classes by allowing privatization, liberalization of rent laws and dismantling of non-Fascist unions.
lilhavanaboys 2 months ago
They never supported Mussolini's ideas. The King appointed Mussolini not because he supported Fascism, but because armed Blackshirts were marching the streets of Rome preparing to overthrew the government by force.Certain members of the Kings government urged him to open fire on the Fascists, but the King was concerned that such an action could spark a civil war ( and no, Italy was not in a civil war at that point).He did appoint Mussolini because he supported his ideas, but because the prospect
ImperialRussianGuard 2 months ago
of civil war seemed far worse. The King expressed the reasoning behind his decision quite clearly in his memoirs. Not only is there no evidence to suggest that the King was a Fascist, there is clear evidence in primary sources which show quite the contrary. Unless you can show some primary sources to support your case, your argument will remain unconvincing.
ImperialRussianGuard 2 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Learn a little history. Mussolini was very popular among with the ruling families and the Nationalist. Which is why 80% of Italy's farming was owned by 3% of the population from 1922 - 1936. And major car makers and large foreign investors profited off from his protection of corporate power. Not only did Mussolini crushed the Socialist uprisings, he banned their parties and arrested most of them just for being in the party.
lilhavanaboys 2 months ago
You claim 80% of Italy's farming was owned by 3% of the population from 1922 - 1936, would you mind telling us where exactly did you get this statistic ? Also what evidence do you have to support that Mussolini was popular among the aristocracy? Since I have read several recollections of prominent members of the Italian aristocracy of that time, not a single one of them writes that there was a strong fascist sympathy amongst the Italian aristocracy. Remember, rhetoric does not count as evidence
ImperialRussianGuard 2 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Actually many books title this, most famous work was on Nazi Germany's close relationship with western banks and local aristocrats: "Germany and big business" and I suggest you also look up Italian economics and how life was under Mussolini in Italy.
lilhavanaboys 2 months ago
@lilhavanaboys I've actually read that book before. If find it interesting that you reference it as a source, when it argues a thesis completely contrary to yours. The author argues that the contributions of wealthy capitalists to the NSDAP were not as great as often believed to be. I will link you to a book review which reveals the books sentiments.
ImperialRussianGuard 2 months ago
ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p369_Ries.html
ImperialRussianGuard 2 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard The Nazi party associated itself with the Nationalist and as a Nationalist party. It was in support of the lower middle class because Germany was hit hard by the depression, for connivance, and tactical proposes, was that Far right wing groups started to call themselves "Social" "People's" and "Socialist" with their parties names. Some still live on today. The Social conservative party, the Christian's people's party, The Christian Democratic party.
lilhavanaboys 2 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard For tactical proposes, Hitler named his party the "National Socialist party" like many far right wing groups. Because they wanted public appeal and promised anything and everything to the public. Hitler abused the people's depression, and desperation to find a way out of poverty so he made every single promise he could, along with his propaganda machine (Powered by American film makers like Fox.) to get public appeal.
lilhavanaboys 2 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard It was also supported by the Aristocrats because Hitler promised a new currency which would be base on labor power instead of the Gold standard (Which Germany lost most of it during the first world war) So major companies also supported and funded Hitler because he was going to work on behalf of their interest.
lilhavanaboys 2 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard
There were people in the Italian Fascist party who didn't liked some "Left wing" economics so thus, the economic policy of corporatism quickly faltered: the left-wing elements of the Fascist manifesto were opposed by industrialists, most Nationalist and landowners who supported the party because it pledged to defend Italy from communism and socialism.
lilhavanaboys 2 months ago
communism is just about making people work for nothing and making the state and a few elites rich
scottishchap2008 10 months ago
@scottishchap2008
Communism is stateless and classless you tool, Marx said so, Lenin said so, Kropotkin said so, EVERY communist said so. There is no "elite" in communism.
GodOfTheInternets 2 months ago
Perhaps desire of children to differentiate themselves from their parents, congregation of people into mobs and cliques, groupthink, wolf pack mentality and other such things have much more to do with it than class struggle. (Or race or gender struggle, for that fact.)
Kurtlane 1 year ago
One correction: Milyukov was no communist. He was the founder of the Constitutional Democratic party. Supporting him was supporting democracy.
There is little mistery about predicting Tsar's resignation. It was pretty obvious, as Tsar was in the train and couldn't even get home because railroad tracks were blocked by revolutionaries.
The February revolution was not a Communist revolution. The communist one took place in November.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 year ago
But I agree with the main idea. Overwhelming majority of communists and leftists comes not from workers but from the rich themselves. Actually, the children of the rich. Lenin himself admitted that the revolutionaries come not from proletariat but from the bourgeoisie (or more precisely, from the relatively young children of the bourgeoisie).
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 year ago
If one thinks about it, one has to come to a paradoxical conclusion that though Marxism had major impact on late 19th and all of 20th century, the mechanism of it was entirely different from what Marx described.
Over two millennia ago, Aristophanes described the real mechanism in "Clouds."
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 year ago
Not much has changed. Today 's leftists are still backed by rich businessmen and most of their leaders are rich kids, not the workers they claim to champion. They talk about freedom, but their goal is control.
jpb252 1 year ago
Capitalism and Communism are at root one in the same. They allow those not fit to rule dominate society. The difference between the two is simply aesthetic. Great video.
PurePerfection 1 year ago
@PurePerfection In what sense does a STATELESS society allow an unfit individual to rule?
PesiCool 1 year ago
@PesiCool
The ideal communist state is stateless as you note. While this isn't inherently bad, the sort of stateless society communists argue for is one where there is, in effect, no leader. This is what produces the unfit individual, seeing as there isn't even that.
PurePerfection 1 year ago
@PurePerfection ..........................lol
PesiCool 1 year ago
@PesiCool
Sorry you're not as unique or "revolutionary" as you thought. Good luck establishing an actual stateless society that somehow manages to defy nature's natural hierarchy's.
PurePerfection 1 year ago
@PurePerfection Thanks.
PesiCool 1 year ago
The March revolution was not the Communist revolution which happened in November you fucking idiot.
MaoismLinBiaoism 1 year ago
@MaoismLinBiaoism . Hey genius, maybe If you watched the video you would know that I never the said the Communist revolution happened in March. I included the letter from Jacob Schiff to show that he also played a role in the March revolution as well as the Communist revolution. I know Communists aren't very intelligent but surely you could do a better job reading.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
H. H. BEAMISH, N.Y. speech, 1937 "Communism is Judaism. The Jewish Revolution in Russia was in 1918."
HILARY COTTER, author of The Truth About His Real "Crime," page 6 "Communism and Judaism are one and the same."
VLADIMIR, LENIN, Founder of Bolshevik Communist (From an article in Northern Pravda, October-December 1913, in Lenin on the Jewish Question, pg 10 'Jewish Marxists are continuing the best traditions of Jewry."
StSimonMartyr 1 year ago
jewish masonic conspiracy
eulex10 1 year ago
I am not really sure about this video.
Do you have to be poor to be a communist?
I don't think so!
Although you make very good points about them being corrupt.
Evil, tyrannic dictators!
TheBritannicRoyalist 1 year ago
@TheBritannicRoyalist it's not the fact their are poor, is the fact that those people pretending to do the interest of poor people never suffered the disadvantages of beeing poor.Communism was just a big LIE!
Veths 1 year ago
Itzhak Perlman is a brilliant composer. Good video. My friend, I am currently studying Russia in my history class and would appreciate book recommendations that support the argument that Tsarism was strong in 1914. If you could help, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
JCarradiceFrench 1 year ago
@JCarradiceFrench Thank you. The one I would recommend "Nicholas and Alexandra" by Robert K.Massie. I'll find some more books to recommend to you in the future. I might make a video in the future telling the truth about Tsarist Russia.So stay tuned.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago