Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @Wallyworld30  I think you missed the point. No one is free in a Socialist system. You're a servant of the State. Socialism basically brings the return of Feudalism but without the monarch.
    6
  2.  @commandofact7636  I didn't blame anyone. Even presented some reasoning why they'd have sympathy being removing colonial occupation. I'd suggest not to jump defensively toward comments that didn't blame anyone for anything.
    6
  3.  @yewhannes  To be frank it's quite the opposite. To claim he isn't a Socialist because it doesn't meet your MODERN concept of Socialism in spite of the history of socialism itself, is naive, and dishonest.
    6
  4.  @WinstonSmith22  I find you bring up China a bit fun. I've seen Socialist Argue whether China is State Capitalism or Market Socialism. If they're having that argument it implies the functional differences are vague enough for it to be an argument. Meaning TIKs argument that State Capitalism is just another phrase for Socialism comes off as more true than Socialist want to admit.
    6
  5.  @Gvjrapiro  You 2nd comment "socialism as a system is defined by the community owning the means of production." Take note from Community and on. Webster ": any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" Collective Ownership or Government Ownership. But in Socialist Society the Collective is often if not always the state.
    5
  6.  @Gvjrapiro  "Ah, but there's a catch. It's only collective ownership if the state is actually representative of that collective. Same with state ownership.." But if it's representative of the collective like that of say the Trade Unions of the USSR it's still State Ownership.
    5
  7.  @Gvjrapiro  Wait? Monarchism? Seriously? Do you realize how much Hitler and the Kaiser hated eachother yes? Hitler even kicked the Kaiser's family members out of the military after he came to power. Mussolini's case in particular he took power by force/threats to the King. Either he give him control of Italy or he would forcefully depose him, which is hardly the attitude of a Monarchist. ie Mussolini took over forcefully. If Fascist were monarchist their wouldn't of been a pro Monarchist Coup in Japan in 1936 which ended horrible for the Righteous Army which was defeated by the Japanese Imperial Army.
    5
  8.  @TheImperatorKnight  It's an issue in China right now. Issue is the STATE lies so blatantly that no one in China actually trust the State to ever tell the truth. Because of this ironically rumors and social media is just about the only way to get real information within China.
    5
  9. It's actually quite sad really. But man does it make the Zeons from Mobile Suit Gundam sound so much more realistic, as they also had a lot of infighting, even sabotaging other officers/generals at the cost of their own people or even entire campaigns, it was a constant internal power struggle which many members were willing to eve harm their own nation's ability to win the war to rise a few more steps up the ladder. You don't normally hear this kind of stuff with the "White Washed" version of history you grow up with, but I actually watched Operation Crusader finally the 9 hour video and it seems the British had similar internal problems, so I wonder how widespread this kind of madness existed among all nations?
    5
  10. TIK, I've been 25:28 curious, does Hitler actually say he learned that Jews created Capitalism from Marx in Mine Comfy Chair? I've only gone through a few chapters on audio book of it before I was too sicken by it to go much farther. If this isn't the case where did he say this? Because to be honest it's a striking and important claim to cite. I'm not sure if you're referring to the quote at 25:33 when you're citing P198 of that infamous book or there is much more being said.
    5
  11.  @JamesPeers5454  They're the same side, just people's concept of said sides are messed up. Example, if you go back to the formulation of Left vs Right, it harkens back to the divide in the original French Republic's political divide, a republic founded by Liberal Revolutionaries. Issue is much of the intelligentsia which gave rise to the Enlightenment Period which founded modern Liberal views were themselves members of the middle (merchant class) or lower to upper aristocracy. The primary divide was not Liberal vs Conservative like many on the left try to preach, but Equality vs Liberty. The left wanted equality while the right wanted liberty ie democracy but maintain the general social structure of the country. Both sides were primarily Liberal. You see this even today. What rights does the Right fight to preserve? Liberty. The Left still fight for Equality even if it's at the expense of Liberty. It's why both sides are Liberal but fight for different Liberal values. Conservativism was coined by the left primarily to explain why supposed Revolutionaries would dare oppose the Left's battle for Equality. This is also why the Right supports Individualism and Economic Liberalism as well. Both Liberal ideas.
    5
  12. I think you look at it the wrong way. People who mention these crimes, do not do so 'hiding' what the Germans did. Most people already know the horrible actions of the German Army and Waffen SS throughout Eastern Europe, and honestly, do not really need exclaimers and constant reminders of it when talking about Soviet and Ally crimes. So of course when these people mention crimes committed by the Soviets, why should they also mention crimes committed by the Germans? Most people should already know what the Germans did, unless they're that ignorant. And most keyboard warriors are not going to go in depth comparing. Now academically, it's necessary. But honestly, often comparing normally only makes it sound like they're making excuses and even plausibly justifying. ie using one nations crimes, to justify other crimes against them, vice versa.
    5
  13.  @Nelson-gs9yv  I would emphasis that this has more to do with the German Army not being as "Mythologically" godly as people claim while the Red Army became competent. For example, most of those 'glorious' stats/figures people often throw around came from 1941/42 in which most of the offensive fighting was done by the very best German units, (you know those 10-14 to 1 figures) they also would suffer the brunt of casualties, and loses in return. These were also irreplaceable loses, as it takes years to train crack divisions. That being said, the quality of German infantry divisions, and reserve divisions wouldn't be up for the challenge to fill those loses. Most of which were conscripted in a hurry prior to the start of the war, to fill in the ranks needed for these "Grand" Campaigns. The causalties between the two leveled out considerably year after year, but always remained in favor of the German Army, save for as you pointed out some local victories for the Red Army, but the same goes for the Germans. But even in the later war period, the Red Army still suffered double the casualties between 44/45 cross the entire theatre, when compared to other theatres fought by other parties, that isn't something to gloat, or praise. Definitely when you take the quality of the vast majority of German divisions the Red Army were facing at this time. The Allies had a hard time for example, but that was because most of the divisions they faced in the west were well equipped (for 1944 standards) and experienced, hoping to stop the Allies cold with some of the better divisions available at the time. Despite this, the Allies still came out on top with loses in casualties, when the Red Army didn't in the same time period, while not holding the same major numerical advantages either. Again, I'm not roasting the Red Army intentionally. From what I've read, it's been just as over glorified as the Wehrmacht. If an equal strengthed crack Red Army division faced a German one in the field in 1944, I'd still place my money on the German one. I'd place my money on an American one above either. That being said, to me I consider the British though to be the most over glorified and hyped Army from WWII, despite performing poorly in nearly every campaign, even the ones they won.
    5
  14. 1:00 damn right out of Andrew Carnegie's mouth. Wiki on him "During the last 18 years of his life, he gave away around $350 million (roughly $5.9 billion in 2022),[6] almost 90 percent of his fortune, to charities, foundations and universities" One of the Richest men in American history. In fact his charity allowed a lot of colleges to operate for generations without much funding. To me he is the ideal Capitalist. Favorite quotes below. “No man becomes rich unless he enriches others.” “The man who dies rich, dies disgraced.” “The Republic may not give wealth or happiness, she has not promised these. It is the freedom to pursue these, not their realization, we can claim.” Carnegie believed a first half of a man's life was to pursue wealth. Being he believed you couldn't take that wealth with you, he decided by the end of his life he would give most of it away before he died. He left enough behind for his family primarily wife to live a modest life. He didn't believe in giving money to his son either, the believed his son had to earn his own wealth.
    5
  15.  @TheImperatorKnight  "If a man dies poor he has failed. If he dies rich, he has created substantial wealth for society, which is why he died rich." I think you took his quote out of context a bit. When he said "The man who dies rich, dies disgraced." he was talking about someone who is wealthy who dies with that wealth. Not someone who is poor who dies poor. He is implying that he views it a responsibility that someone who has as much wealth as he did, to give back to the community later in their lives. If they die with that wealth in tact, it should be viewed as a disgrace. I don't think he believed in inheritance definitely when you're as rich as he was. As I stated he gave away about 90% of his wealth, but still left a lot for his family to live on after his death. But when ti came to the insane amount of wealth he accumulated in his life, he deemed it wasn't necessary to make it ALL inheritance so was in a rush during the last years of his life building schools, libraries, hospitals and setting up funds.
    5
  16.  @finlaymcdiarmid5832  Hitler viewed the USA as one of her biggest enemies. America was the Capitalist Capital of the World in his eyes. Like how the USSR was the Marxist Capital of the World. Hitler viewed the USA and the USSR as his biggest threats, enemies of the Reich. Hitler was far from a Capitalist, he made that clear so many times. The fact anyone would say he was a Capitalist is lunacy. Sure you can argue he wasn't a Socialist, but arguing that he was a Capitalist is nuts.
    5
  17.  @Yora21  I'm under the opinion, that the German people would have needed to start peeing oil, pooping gold while taking fertility pills meanwhile developing excellerated growth magic spells to win the war. Otherwise by 1941 they were doomed. Even before Operation Barbarossa. USA was already pseudo involved in the war, and to be honest it was not a matter if but when they'd lose. The invasion of the USSR just accelerated their defeat. They would of only lasted long enough to get nuked first.
    5
  18. Curious whether you can do a video about the Rheinland POW camps that often cause so much fuss and controversy? Similar to "Dresden" it's often used as anti western propaganda. But at the same time, I'm often skeptical of US/UK POW deaths being such a ridiculously small percent that even Neutral countries had a higher rate of lose of POWs than the latter. Which makes those claims about the Rheinland Camps being a Allied Cover up somewhat believable. I'm on the ropes on the subject as I honestly don't know who to believe, and knowing your attention to detail, and willingness to avoid being bias, I think it would be a good justice if you took on the subject, if you're willing.
    5
  19.  @PutasZG  No where near as bad as when a historian spits out that the P51 was the best plane of WWII, or that a Tiger Tank could be killed only by being shot in the ass. TIK actually does research instead of vomiting WWII memes like most other channels. Willing Criticizes things he finds odd, or wrong. The only one that seems to really come close is The Time Ghost team but they're an entire group, doing roughly what TIK does alone. TIK also already stated that historians and researchers are bias, which included himself in said statement. Also honestly, I don't see where the complaint is at. The state manipulated it's agriculture to bad results. While under the control of a Commissariat, or a Commission, whichever you like the call it. Even if either of the two terms were not used, it was a Socialism over reach, which lead to stereotypical state mismanagement, and suffering.
    5
  20. Technically the T-34 wasn't a superior tank to the Panzer III. Technologically anyways. On paper the T-34 and KV-1 are terrifying. M4 Sherman was also superior to most every tank the Germans and Soviets ever produced during the war. Just because something is bigger/more terrifying doesn't mean it's technologically superior. Kinda like Adolf Gallant said. If the Me262 had British Engines it would of been an amazing aircraft, as the British Meteor itself was crap but it's engines were superior to the ones in the Me262. Same thing with the M4 Sherman, I bet German crews would of been tickled to death if the Panther had a M4 Sherman's gear box. You can look at images of the Gear Box/Transmission used on a M4 Sherman and there is absolutely no way the Panther has superior technology when it comes to individual components put into it.
    5
  21. No it was after he join the Illuminati, and came in contact with Aliens from Pluto.
    5
  22. Gotta give him credit. He had the cuts to change the title of the book to one more fitting to the case he is arguing.
    5
  23.  @Usammityduzntafraidofanythin  Nope, hegemony.
    5
  24. So glad that I was a big Sim City fan because at least the early games teach you that low taxation = greater growth, and great growth = more tax income in spite of low tax rates. Why? If the populous prospers so will the state. It's tragic that the left, and socialist fail to understand that basic principle. If they do understand it they're ignoring it intentionally because they want the populous to rely on the state knowing that low taxes will reduce their reliance on the state which reduces their power.
    5
  25.  @oscartang4587u3  To be frank most socialist need to go back and redefine what Socialism is because the definition often used can easily be applied to almost any regime with enough power to control the economy. Which ironically makes them look like idiots when they deny the Nazis are socialist. Which is ironically why I like TIK's definition of Socialism, which is Social Ownership. Social Ownership doesn't exactly exclude private ownership if the private owners are part of the social group that controls the economy. If you've noticed almost all Socialism is about "A" Social "Group" Rising up and taking Control of the Means of Production from the "Other." For example, Marxism and all variants based off it, it's about the "Working Class" Rising Up and taking Control of the Economy and State from the "Land Owners" if you use plain English instead of their rubbish religious rhetoric. But, if you refuse the accept the concept of the Working Class, or Classes in General, you pull the rug right out of Communism and most Variations of Socialism along with it. As without it, it can not function at all. Which is why Marxism has utterly failed in the USA, with the Adoption of Neo Liberalism or more accurately Classic Liberalism since the 1980s. Where people were raised to view people as individuals vs rather than "Groups" as a result almost all collectivized movements lost power, including trade unions as everyone by the late 90s wanted to take charge of their own lives, and it's hard to do that when you're part of a union of sorts. This is interestingly why the Left as switched to Racial and Gender Politics, they need "New Groups" to fight for Social Control, if they want their Social Revolution. They've lost the war for the Working Class, as those often deemed as the Working Class are in support of their opposition anymore. It's fun seeing how horrific of failures Marxist and Socialist in General have been in the USA. Feminism it's about giving women more power in the economy, business and short, but doesn't exactly mean total social control, or collective ownership. Feminist use a lot of Marxist rhetoric reworded around gender boundaries. But it's basically Gender Marxism. But all that matters to the radical elements of feminism is Women Dominate Society, that's their goal. Not exactly equality. Modern CRT, when I literally hear them say "Race Consciousness" it's hard to not refer back to Marxist who say Class Conscious. So you know those who support it are reading off the same hymn sheet yet again. Again it's just Socialism rebranded with a "New" Social Group, this time a Racial. Ironically not that dissimilar to Nazism in that respect. It's sad when you see Liberalism actually being the enemy of these groups as well. Liberalism is about Individualism and Individual Liberties. This is why the Left has since coined the term Neo Liberalism, because it's hard to argue against Right Wing Liberals, who are actual Liberals when they call themselves Liberals. Because the things they support are Liberalism in it's purist forms. So of course they created Neo Liberalism as a means of demonizing Liberals who are opposed to their "Revolution." Going so far to calling them Far Right, which I find funny, being Far Right means anything they want it to mean anymore, either Anarchy or Totalitarianism? Which is it? lol
    5
  26. It's also why they use phrases like counter revolutionaries when referring to opposition. Because rebelling against an Oppressive regime instated by revolutionaries makes you not a rebellion. "You're not real revolutionaries!!" It's all madness.
    5
  27.  @CrazyLeiFeng  Similar thing happened in East Germany and Hungary. Post war former Nazis and Fascist became leaders and members of the local Communist parties. West German Social Democrats nicknamed them Red Nazis... which is funny as Nazis always flew a red banner in a literal sense. But there are too many examples of Communist, Marxist, Fascist and Nazis fluidly switching sides. Sometimes multiple times.
    5
  28. The CCP just started a birthing policy encouraging unwedded Teen Girls to get pregnant. I wonder which other regime did the same thing. Glances over to Himmler
    5
  29. @gbcb8853  To be honest Trump is more FDR than Wendell Willkie. Like US providing Britain with Lend Lease strings were attached, like handing over pretty much all of Britain's research/technology. A far more demanding request than Trump's resource demands.
    5
  30. I doubt it would be possible without a century of research done by dozens if not hundreds of individuals.
    5
  31.  @edwinpassii8430  well I tried but YT deleted my reply. This is an insanely touchy subject that requires code words to dicusse in the comment section. I tried to give a history of thd IHR and what I know from the time I was with what remained of it like 10 years ago before I jumped ship but YT bots wiped the reply and I honestly can not discuss it without specifics including names without sounding like a loony. I really miss youtube before the censorship.
    5
  32.  @BiharyGabor  I will never answer your questions until you answer mine that isn't how this game works. Mine came first and you've refused, so why would I answer any of yours. And yes by implying Marx had no definitive definition for Capitalism you are by defacto claiming their is no definition. Regardless whether you mean to or not. This will continue until that happens.
    5
  33. 1:58 lets be honest, racism has a long dark path in human history, and it's not something unique to europeans. Though I do think at least European wise, we are the only ones that tried to take it to a scientific level from what I know, though I maybe wrong.
    5
  34. Himmler's Possen 1943 speech spells it out quite clearly when he addressed a serious question that must of been important enough issue within the ranks of the SS that it needed to be addressed as it's own bullet point in the speech. The children. Many within the SS seemed to view the children as innocent. Himmler in that speech addressed it as "these children will grow up hating us for what we have done. For this we will forever have to view them with distrust as they will grow up to be our new threat as they may never forgive us." Yes I paraphrased... as I don't remember it word for word, but he basically justified the murder of children providing rationale to other officers within the SS. The fact he brought it up means many had serious issues with what they were doing. Especially toward children. To me the 1943 Possen Speech was proof enough. However, it lets you know that they were still human with human concerns. Yet used horrible logic and inhuman rationale to justify what they were doing. You can understand why many of them became alcohol and drug addicts. It falls back to one of my favorite quotes. "Some of the worst things imaginable happened out of good intentions."
    5
  35.  @Hunterchuck  Lenin was not a liberal.. nor was Marx, Mao or Stalin. Collectivism is in direct opposition to Liberalism. TIK even states Lenin hated Liberalsin this video.
    5
  36. time to watch the video again =D
    5
  37. I literally had to debate someone recently who justified the 1946/47 famine by claiming that asking for aid would bankrupt the country as the USSR was already in billions of debt from Lend Lease. Making it dependent and a Slave to the West. While ignoring a few things... 1. Lend Lease was generally Free. With a post war 90% discount for equipment not returned to the USA. In turn the USSR received roughly 11-12 billion in aid during the war. Meaning the USSR was only really 1billion in debt, not including war reparations paid to the USSR and let alone the USSR eventually paid 722 million by the 1970s. So the USSR wasn't in massive debt to the west. 2. Ignoring that the USSR could of traded for Food. They did in the 60s, yet in the 20s, 30s and now the 40s couldn't? 3. Meanwhile the USA was already keeping much of Europe Fed until they rebuilt. So why couldn't the USSR ask for food aid like everyone else? Basically the person willing defended the position that letting millions to starve to death was a justified sacrifice if it means the Soviet Union remained safe from Western influence.. ie economic aid. I was absolutely shocked by such a heartless position.
    5
  38.  @overman2306  Well the Nazis and Communist also fought on the same side a few times against the Social Democrats.
    5
  39.  @Raskolnikov70  If I recall Eisenhower would intentionally slow advances if not halt them just because if that reason. He wanted solid advances and did not like to bypass German forces.
    5
  40.  @jrenjrapiro817  Says the person that accused me of being a Fascist about a week ago. Hypocrite by definition. But I ignored when you did instead of whined about it.
    5
  41.  @TheImperatorKnight  Seems YouTube auto deleted my comment again. Too many flags. I wrote a comparison that summed up the similarities of Marx's antisemitism and Hitlers. But I guess I used to many of a specific term in one comment again. Lol
    5
  42. To be frank, even earlier in the stalingrad series it's evident that Chuikov intentionally lies. Though he isn't the only General to do this, many on all sides have done this, during and post war. Chief among them, TIK's favorite scapegoat Halder, among also Generals like Montgomery, Manstein etc.
    5
  43. Coincidentally I tried to mention this to TIK a few times on other videos. Modern China is very similar to National Socialist Germany with one key difference. China over the past 30 years has opened it's economy up to the world Market. Something the Nazis refused to do, which doomed their economy to fail. You can imagine how much the world would be different today if the Nazis didn't close their economy.
    5
  44. BTW Paulus' testimony in the Nuremberg trials against his peers likely also helped make him a target by Halder post war. Either way, Halder seemed to have some personal hatred for Paulus, whether it happened pre-Stalingrad or post War is up for debate. Either way, the version of history where Paulus is a bad General is literally pro Nazi propaganda.
    5
  45.  @johnwolf2829  yes but what were Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt? Compared that to Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson who were big Statist and Socialist in creed. Which were more liberal?
    5
  46.  @jackdeath  you didn't mention any economics. Yet are asking me about economics. That being said. Former Soviet Citizen > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA8n5xYIQx0 BTW this guy has released many videos contradicting Communist version of Wehraboos arguments about how great the USSR was. This one is directly towards people arguing the quality of life/food was far better in the USSR when in the 1970/80s compared to the USA it wasn't even comparable, for example he states just about the only meat you would get was canned or processed which is why even today he prefers processed meat because that is what he grew up with when he was in the USSR. Where as in the USA Americans could afford steak, in the USSR the option to buy Steak didn't even exist, if any meat was even available even canned which a lot of the times it wasn't unless you lived in a major city. Soviet Resource Mismanagement discussed quite easily. USSR was insanely wasteful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Jkqqlpibo < Why the USSR went bankrupt by the 1980s, it spent most of it's capital reserves even before the end of the 70s. Meaning the USSR ran out of means of trading with foreign nations as it's currency was worthless abroad. This is why they started bartering for foreign trade, it's ironically why PEPSI ended up with two Soviet Submarines, USSR was that desperate for more PEPSI to keep the illusion their nation had it all. TIK's own video on the Soviet Economy, which he argues that it's very plausible that the USSR may of never achieved a quality of life based on population growth/averages even equal to that of the Pre-WWI Russian Empire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPVo9w79D6w Seeing the Usbanka Show's videos honestly TIK may not be wrong. TIK described the USSR as literally a 50 year humanitarian disaster.
    5
  47. Which is an Oxymoron. You're saying State-None State. By default if it's Totalitarianism it has nothing to do with Capitalism. By calling it capitalism you're saying the economy is being run by the private sector. But by calling it the State you're implying it's being run by the Public Sector. Basically it's a True False logic Fallacy. Either it's one or the other it can not magically be both. To emphasis how much of one it is. Many Socialist are still arguing right now whether the modern CCP's China is either Market Socialism, or State Capitalism. Which heavily implies that the only real difference between the two is which regime socialist like or not and want to associate it with Socialism or not. Basically Socialist who like the CCP/China call it a Market Socialist system, while those who hate it call it a State Capitalist system. The fact Market Socialism and State Capitalism are that easily interchangeable implies they mean the same thing, relatively. Like when someone says Public instead of State. They mean the same thing but use two different words to describe it. In turn State Capitalism is just Socialism that Socialist dont like to admit is Socialism.
    5
  48. cracks knuckles The first Fascist/signers of the original Fascist Manifesto of 1914 the "Fascio Rivoluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista" Pardon by bad translation the Fascist International Revolutionary Action. Was signed by Marxist Syndicalist, Anarcho-Syndicalist and National Syndicalist of which most were members of the Italian Socialist Party. Mussolini was kicked out of the Italian Socialist party for supporting this Manifesto of course he didn't co-create it. The manifesto mostly advocated for Italy to get involved in the Great War hoping that it would accelerate the Revolution by weakening the existing Nation States. Basically it was signed by socialist who switched from an Anti War Stance to a Pro War stance. This Manifesto inspired the later "Fascio d'Azione Rivoluzionaria" of 1919, which was the founding Manifesto for what would later become Italian Fascist Party. SO NO, you're completely wrong. Fascism has EVERYTHING to do with Socialism. It was FOUNDED BY SOCIALIST. They didn't magically stop being Socialist because they called themselves Fascist. Even the word Fascism literally means Unionist in a a broad sense, and they placed the good of the community above individual needs... which is totally NOT CAPITALIST. And you know there is a contradiction in this narrative because between 1919, and 1921 the Fascist magically go from being considered Far Leftist historically to Far Right by mainstream historians. What is comical is how often I see them saying Fascism is deeply rooted in Revolutionary Syndicalism, and just because someone throws National onto a name like say National Syndicalism automatically makes it "Far Right." When nationalism, heck even the word conservatism has little to do with the left or right of the political spectrum. Of course many will try to convince people otherwise. People on the left hold some of the tightest conservative views I've ever seen unyielding, and spit on the concept of Liberalism almost daily. Yet... they're on the left. There is a reason TIK used the word Commiservative and omg did that made me laugh as I wish I thought of it.
    5
  49. All idealist are madmen to an extent because they're not realist who base their decisions on reality. Eventually they choose to act on faith/belief that their ideals will work even if it goes against reality and reason. When it fails they almost always find ways to blame others.
    5
  50. If I recall when David Irving was arrested in Austria, or was that Hungary? Lipstadt was one of a number of Holocaust Historians who came out and condemned the arrest for the very reason you mentioned. This is in spite of the assumption that both Lipstadt and Irving seemed to hated each other. Sadly this kind of nonsense is making it to the USA and UK in the mask of Hate Crime laws. I know someone was arrested recently for painting over Graffiti related to the recent rioting despite it was on their own property because it was considered a hate crime to remove it by the leftist local government.
    5