Comments by "jean-louis pech" (@jean-louispech4921) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
some simple answers to this video :
0) socialists movements include anarchist movement were there is no state, then economy controlled by state is not what defines socialism. And you can't put in the same ideological family socialist version of anarchism and nazism, they are 100% antagonists. It is like saying that Congo and greenland have the same climate.
Totalitarian propaganda claiming one thing is not a proof of anything. The claim of socialism by totalitarian regimes was just a propaganda tool for attract workers, not a political reality.
1) war of Spain in 1936 :
on one side the far right lead by Franco
on the other side left Spanish left wing and the communist party under Stalinist direction, and then all the shades of socialism on this side.
Hitler and nazis were on the side of the far right agaisnt socialists. Because nazis were enemies of socialists.
Stalin made kill socialists, anarchists, republicans, too. At the end the Communist Party under Stalinist direction was the enemy of the left wing.
2) target of assassination by nazis : the first and main target by nazis were ... socialist and union leader, another proof that nazis were not socialists but enemy of socialists
3) purpose and main definition of socialism against Nazism :
Socialism was born for one purpose : emancipate workers from economic exploitation from capitalism or slavery, then from economic exploitation from private owner of private property.
Then socialism was about giving collective power on political and economic level.
Collective power on politic level, involve democratic elected assemblies or direct democracy, and no personal power from a strong chief (right wing concept).
Nazism was all about personal power of a strong chief (dictator ) and destruction of democratic assemblies, then on political level Nazism is antagonist to socialism , and Stalinism and Maoism too.
On economic level well Nazism removed all rights and possibility of having a weight on decisions in the enterprise, Nazism has given all power to the capitalists over workers. And worst for your false theory Nazism has allowed industrial cartel to practice slavery within the camps.
Just this fact exclude to 100% from socialism, the rest is just void words.
Socialism ins born in western Europe, and socialists parties there , and their children , like social democracy were actor in bringing more democracy,; more freedom and more equality, more well being for workers, etc... Socialist party or social democrats were enemies of Nazism.
Nazism was a far right party for Nazis and the rest of Europe (see War of Spain above).
It is meaningless to associate Nazism with its antagonists ideologies. Only ignorant can believe in a such a wrong belief.
6
-
6
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
@ponti5882
exploitation of workers or slavery by big capitalists, like did Nazism is anti socialist.
socialism is about horizontal social relations, Nazism is about vertical social relation ( military, social, sexist or racial , hierarchies).
Socialism leads to the end of economic hierarchies, racial hierarchies , nazism is built on economic,and racial hierarchies.
Socialism is a left wing ideology, and because of all what i said, nazism is a far right ideology.
You are confusing antagonists ideologies and concepts.
History and political analysis go against your claims.
3
-
3
-
@danielbowman7226
nazism was far right for nazis, all German politic, and in all Europe at this era.
It was the symbol of the far right in the 30's.
If you can summarize the Nazi program it could be tell in few words : "destroying all the heritage from the Left, and from the French Revolution ( Republic, democracy, power of elected assembly ,, etc... ) "
And this is clearly a far right program.
For political analysis , this is simple Nazism check all the feature of a far right ideology.
The values of the Nazism are the value of the right wing : Order and Hierarchy and you add identity, and you win the big prize for a far right ideology like Nazism.
Values are what really define where fit an ideology. The state is just a tool in the hand of the purpose of the ideology, you have democratic states like you have dictatorial states, you have state controlling economy while you have states that let the economy in the hand of the private owners.
Then speaking about state, does not define if it is right or left.
USSR under stalin is just a variation of bonapartism in France, a guy who after the revolution, takes the power for himself and replace the elites of the feodality by its won elites.
When you know real socialism, the socialism defined by western Europeans thinkers in France, Great Britain, Germany, etc.... you know that socialism is born for one thing, and then it defines socialism : make workers free of economic oppression by giving a politic and economic collective power ( on the politic level it is called democracy ) where workers are involved, instead of a power including the state in the hand of an elite being nobles, capitalists, member of a party, religious, etc....
USSR of stalin or nazism do not fit with the real socialism, worst they allow exploitation of worker by economic elites ( big capitalists in Germany, members of the party in USSR ) , and they go agaisnt socialism.
If you are not ignorant in history, you should know that the war of Spain was a war between the Spanish left wing (republicans in the french meaning, anarchists , socialists, etc... ) agaisnt the Spanish far right led by Franco and with ally other far right powers : the fascist Italy and the nazi Germany.
Destroying all try to put nazism in theme bag with socialists.
You are wrong about the political spectrum.
This is a 2D spectrum with two axes of antagonism : Autonomy/freedom agaisnt Authoritarianism, and Equality against hierarchy/Inequalities.
Strong ideological lines combine two objects
: the real left wing from the ideas from the French Revolution ( democratic republic with power to the assembly, universal suffrage , abolition of slavery, independence from religion, etc... ),, and from socialist movement in the 19th century until Marx/Engels (rights and power for the workers, solidarity, social politics, internationalism, etc... ) , combine Autonomy and Equality, this is why French Revolutionaries and socialists have claimed Liberty, Equality, Fraternity values of the Revolution and socialism.
The Liberalism mix Autonomy/Freedom with inequality, this is the typical anglo saxon culture too.
The right and far right, conservatives, reactionaries, nationalists, without any influence from liberalism or the Left, combines Authoritarianism and Hierarchy.
And you have a fourth orientation combining Authority and Equality. This is the basic culture in ... Russia and China. Some specialist call this orientation Communitarianism.
Then transferring Russia and China to the Left in Western countries is a fallacies, this is not the same culture, not the same mentality, not the same logic of idea, then it is not the same ideology.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jackcade68
You speak about an Orwellian ideology where words are distorded from their original meaning.
The left right antagonism was drawn at the french Revolution and with the socialist movement in the 19th century.
And then ideologies based on race are right wing ideology.
Left wing ideologies, including Marxism are color blind, they are universalist, focused on the unity and equality of peoples above racial and social differences.
You know that a con can claim toi be honest, it does not makes him someone honest. Claiming being Marxist is a sport made by peoples who have nothing to do with the philosophy of Marx and Engels , including regimes oppressing peoples who are close to the ideas of Marx ( stalin, mao, pol pot, etc... )....
The main focus of Marxism is the freedom of workers form economic oppression as drive for others changes in the society.
Woke is about the reject of the majority of workers as racist, oppressor, etc....
Claims are not proofs.
Only concordance of facts with definitions of words matters.
This is the only mean to have a meaningful and rational view on politic... and conversation.
It applies to "anti racist" claims too , for sure.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Notdjsbjj
socialism is internationalist because it is an universalist ideology,
The first international socialist was made by all the socialist trends from Marx to anarchists....
while nazism is a nationalism and it is a particularist, hierarchic ideology.
And then they are antagonist ideology, then nazism can't be socialist.
I don't speak about Marxism, i speak about socialism. LOL you are very bad.
The purpose of all socialism is to remove hierarchies, oppression, etc... and making an egalitarian society.
This is the case for socialist anarchism for example....
It is the proof that you don't know what is socialism.
You are manipulating reality by trying to fit a far right ideology in the left wing family of socialist ideologies.
You are an ignorant who can't understand that antagonist ideologies can't be put in the same box.
Your last sentence about jew, is just bullshit that have no relation with my messages.
This is the proof that you are a liar and manipulator.
To be offended because i recall the truth prove that you are stupid.
The fact that you call discrimination , persecutions, etc... as socialization, is the proof that you are stupid, words are meaningless with you.
Only stupid and ignorant peoples defend nazism as socialism, because nazism is a pure example of far right racist nationalism .
1
-
1
-
@Jack-yc9mv
Yes fascism , like nazism, is authoritarian like you point and is particularist, then it is a right wing ideology.
While real left wing ideologies are individualists and universalist .
Then there is no point to go further you loose your time by confusing antagonist ideologies.
Censorship is authoritarian, and it is in all far right systems , the right wings without influences of liberalism.
Control made by state or religion, it is always the same ideological orientation.
Exploitation of workers made by authoritarian state, like under fascism or nazism, or by egoist capitalists, it is always a right wing principle while the left wing principle is the autonomy of workers by direct democracy like with socialist anarchism, or by assemblies of workers like with classic socialism and socialism from Marx and Engels3.
Then there is no confusion possible between fascism and nazism with socialism.
1
-
1
-
@Notdjsbjj
1) socialism is universalist, then the socialist relation between nations is internationalism. It can be relations between autonomous communities or nations....
It is not about global governemnt, but about friendship and cooperation between peoples or nations above frontiers.
Then your statement about me are just about your ignorance of internationalism.
2) nazism predicate a far right state : strong chief, strong hierarchy and no assembly with power, and is about exploitation of workers devoid of rights inside the enterprise. Nobody with a sane brain can look this as socialism.
Several historical socialists have defined socialism as : " democratic power on political and economical level" , and it is true for all the majors historical socialist trends, and for the moderate trend it became social democracy.
Nazism is not a socialism , this is a far right ideology, everybody who have knowledge in politic know this.
But ignorants on internet come in loop , repeating without any brain excitation, , repeating the nazi propaganda : nazism is a socialism.
3)socialism is an big umbrella for peoples who believe any propaganda without critical thinking, without being able to giving a rational definition based upon the historic trends, their motivations, their purposes, etc....
hegel is not a socialist.
Socialism is born in the 19th century agaisnt the oppressive capitalist system upon the workers, and replace it by a democratic power on economic level. It was not the point of Rousseau, nor Hengel , nor Jacobins. Rouseau and Jacobins are bourgeois who are against the "Ancien Régime" which was not based on capitalism, the capitalism in France was just a little baby at the time of the revolution, it was not of any interest for the intellectuals of this time.
Your non understanding of socialism, of ideological antagonisms, etc.. lack of any knowledge, then i don't care about what you think about what i say.
Nationalism + antisemitism, this is the main German far right trend. Nothing related to socialism .... you last your time by defending false things.
You are unable to understand that nazism being based on hierarchy is a right wing ideology, while socialism based on equality is a left wing ideology.
then you lost your time by showing your ignorance.
The application of left wing values and principles on economy, is socialism.... while nazi party was a far right party. It was the symbol of far right parties in the 30's in all Europe....
4) Sorry left and right antagonism rely on a specific ideological antagonism since the French Revolution.
We can put any ideologies on an ideological spectrum including a left versus right axe, based on the values, principles, drives, form of power, social relations, , etc... of the different ideologies.
You are just spreading your ignorance in political analysis.
5) The history show that nazis were far right party , that the economy was not based on socialization but on exploitation of workers like capitalism, that it is based on the power of One like nay far right ideologies, that it is nationalist then a trend of far right, that nazis hate left wing and socialists ideas.
With you socialist is meaningless, and does not means what socialists built as socialism.
You forget that nazis had as first targets of assassination the socialists, that they made war with socialists in Spain, that they were on the far right side of the reichtag near the right wing conservatives and other far rights deputies, that nazis claim their loathe of the central value of socialism equality, etc....
You forget all what defines that nazism is not a socialism but an antagonist ideology to socialism.
Holocaust is from the logic of far right ideology that is racism that- trap peoples in a hierarchy of racial identities, while for socialism all humans belong to humanity and then everybody is equal.
All what you say is meaningless, it is just ignorance and bad propaganda.
1
-
@Jack-yc9mv
LOL capitalism is an oligarchic system, it create a hierarchy between those who own capital and have the power over the enterprise , and the workers who don't have capital and then don't have any power. It is not democracy.
Democracy is a collective power : power is shared by every members of the society.
And when you apply in the economic domain you have one name for this : socialism.
In the 19th century capitalism was more a dictatorship than anything else , capitalists had all the power, and workers were exploited and oppressed, had no rights, no protection from law, , no right of vote, misery wage, etc....
This is why socialism was born : put an end to this nightmare for the workers.
If the capitalism can look human now, this is because there was fight from left wing and socialist movements for giving more rights, protections, more solidarity, etc... for the workers.
Thank you for showing again you ignorance on the subject.
1
-
1
-
@Jack-yc9mv
just for coming back to the subject :
democracy is a collective power , all member of the collective take part on the decisions or who have the power , and made decisions for the collective not for personal interest of some ( it include equal rights for all and freedoms ) .
collective power in enterprise , this is what define socialism.
You have only two possibilities for collective power :
direct democracy , where all peoples in the collective take direct decisions , but it can work only with small collectives.
assemblies elected by all the members of the collective.
Then for being defined as socialist a system must be based on direct democracy like with socialist anarchism, or assemblies for nations and other big collectives.
A system without collective power can't be called socialist.
The power of one , or some, is what define right wing ideologies and what reject left wing ideologies, and then socialism.
Power of one or some , is not a collective power, but a private power, a power excluding the majority of the collective (like a nation ) , and working for the interest of the minority who has the power.
What defines nazism and fascism is the destruction of the power of democratic assemblies, and then the destruction of the collective power.
This is why it is ridiculous to call them socialist, they are by nature and ideology antagonists to socialism.
This is the proof that you don't understand the subject that you are defending.
And if you understand the subject, you understand that capitalism is not related to democracy, because democracy is about collective power, while capitalism is about private power.
1
-
@FightTheByte_
i understand what i am talking about : ideologies, unlike you.
You speak about a man with evolving mentality in the time, while i speak about ideologies.
You throw me apples while i speak about carrots.
Mussolini lie many men at his time was traumatized ion some way by the WWI and then it has changed his mentality.
His slide to fascism is the result of shift of mentality from the WWI.
Ideologies are related at mental drives, and the mental drive of Mussolini has changed , then he has changed of ideology, this why he has left the socialist party and rejoined the far right nationalists.
Ideologies are defined by :
relations and structure of power.and authoritarian strong chief, no democratic assembly is a right wing idea. The it is ot inspired by socialist who is the antagonist : powerful elected assemblies, weak (in power ) or no chief.
Nationalism of the fascism is a far right idea, then it does not come from socialism.
Militarism is a right wing idea,, not a socialist idea.
Promotion of virility is a right wing idea, not a socialist idea.
No right for workers inside enterprise , is a right wing idea that socialism want to destroy, then it s not inspired by socialism.
economic liberalism from the beginning of fascist regime is not a socialist idea. All ignorants forget that fascism economy was based on economic liberalism at start ! ... until it fails, and then mussolini change of politic for a more authoritarian politic.
Then nothing in the far right ideology of fascism was inspired by socialism.
Peoples are not ideologies.
Peoples can change of point of view along time, and sometime can switch to antagonist ideologies, this is the case for mussolini.
All what you have is a fallacious argument.
Fascism is a far right ideology who give power to the private owners over workers and remove all right to the workers.
Fascism is an ideology based on hierarchy while socialism and communism are based on equality , the abolition of hierarchies. Then any people with brain understand that they are antagonist ideologies with antagonist purposes .
This is why fascist hate socialists and communist.
This is why fascist were killing socialists and communist.
This is why fascists made the war to all the Spanish left wing in Spain.
This is why fascist made the war to a regime claiming making the promotion of communism and socialism .
Same thing for nazis.
Then what you say are just lies debunked by history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Notdjsbjj
1) this is your non understanding of internationalism that is bizarre. The USA are not internationalist, they are about aggression, conflict, etc.. between nations and powers.
2) peoples with knowledge about politic and socialism know that one definition of socialism by socialist founders is " democratic power on political and economical level"
Then what you call socialists country with strong elites, are not socialists by definition, this is what is told you before.... you are turn in circle with a false argument. They are socialist by the magic of the totalitarian propaganda, for the appeal to the peoples.
Dictatorship of the proletariat, is not socialism but Marxism, and it is a democratic power by assemblies managed by the proletariat without the capitalists oppressors. But for Marx dictatorship had a meaning from the antiquity, and not the modern meaning of dictatorship which is always the power of one guy.
Well you speak about socialism, but all what i see is from propaganda , and ignorance from the real history of socialism.
3) you are an ignorant about socialism, you claim against me and about socialism are false.
You are the liar.
You are unable to show any real knowledge about socialism, then shut up you face with your lies.
Socialism si from western countries, and is about democratic power.
You just copy past blatant propaganda from totalitarians eastern regimes.
You are ridiculous.
Socialism is born in the 19th century agaisnt the oppressive capitalism , then the French revolution of 1789 can't be socialist. The closer of socialist movement was babouvism , but it not the jacobins. There is no plan about collective power in economy, then it is not socialism.
You don't speak about about socialism in your description.....
Then you prove that you are a big ignorant of the history of the socialism.
The comments from an ignorant about his interpretation of my vision of the socialism, is just a big joke. A boring joke.
Nazism is a far right ideology-. Only ignorant in politic try to pin hole nazis in an ideological side hated by nazis. Nothing ibn what you say about nazism defines socialism.
Nazis hate the main socialist value : equality, then they are not socialist.
Nazis hate socialist: they kiil socialist, and made war with socialist and all the Spanish left wing in the ideological far right agaisnt left wing in spain.
Another proof that you are a big ignorant in politic. Then they are nor socialsits or left wing.
Wel i see that you just spread ignorance about socialism and nazism, with a lot of false claims.
A very imaginative and boring message from an ignorant in politic.
1
-
@Notdjsbjj
i speak about the real socialism, the socialism born in western countries agaisnt the oppression and exploitation of the workers by the capitalism of the 19th century, when only the ( whites in some countries ) riches men could vote. Socialist movement which push forward the ideal of the French Revolution ion term of equality and freedom for all , and defined by collective power ( like democracy ) involving workers on political and economical level, and without what define right wing systems before the revolutions and the capitalist societies of this time : the power of a chief or some. And anarchism is born among socialist movement. And i include moderate trends with the global same purpose, but without revolution, like many socialist parties in western Europe or social democracy.
You speak about a label stolen by totalitarian dictatorship, where workers are exploited, oppressed, and where the power is privatized in the hand of some dictators or elites around the dictator. This is not the same thing. None of them fit with the definition of socialism by socialists.
You can only put anarchist socialist + social democrats, in one hand , and nazis, stalin, mao, etc... on the other hand, in the same bag, only after being drunk and taking funny mushrooms.
1
-
@Notdjsbjj
the goal of socialism is the opposite of stalin, mao, etc... the means of socialism are not the means of stalin, mao, etc... then it makes sense to separate socialism and this dictatorhips .
Goal of socialism is a democratic society where workers have control on political and economical power, not the goal of stalin, mao, etc.... The ideal of socialism is an anarchic like society.... The ideal of stalin, mao, etc...?
Like already said, just the fact that they are based on the power of a strong chief exclude them from socialism.
The simple fact that the regimes allow exploitation of the workers, excludes them from socialists, etc....
The French Revolution bring all of the democratic societies.
Having democratic societies with universal suffrage in all western countries, is the success of the French Revolution.
The French Revolution was hard to maintain because of the double war : agaisnt monarchies, and internal wars.
Another point is that because of the culture of the ancient regime , peoples were in a set of minds where conflict is regulated by violence, and no experience of democracy.
Violent societies generate violent revolutions.
1
-
@mulmeyun
The global idea is god, but not the application.
IN serious political science, there is an universal spectrum based on two axis.
Each axis is an antagonism between : values, motivations, etc....
And we decline this values to each situation/thematic , no need to multiply the axes.
When we speak about economy, both axis are involved, same thing for political system, same thing for the antagonisms you are naming etc...
Well names for each axes can change with the author, the point of view (philosophic, politic, psychological, etc... ).
Then the base axes can be defined by : individualism ( individuals are the drive of the individuals ) versus authority ( drive is external and superior ) , and universalism ( unity of humans above differences, equality, solidarity, etc.... ) versus particularism ( division by differences, inequality , focus on ego , conflict between peoples ) .
And we can combine both axes for strong ideological axes.
On economic and political power we can decline like this :
individualism = autonomous power of the individuals , they don't obey to a chief , or an external authority ( chief, master, etc.... )
Authority = individuals follow the need and will of forces external to the individuals.
universalism = collective property and power , the economic property belongs to everybody and nobody can privatize it for him self, decisions are made for the interest of all the members of the enterprise, society, etc... peoples taking decision do not act for selfish/egocentric purpose.
particularism : private property and power, the economic property belongs to one or some peoples (the owners) and exclude the non owners, power is in the hand of one or some peoples only, and exclude peoples based on economic property or wealth, social status , or sex , race, etc... purpose is to enhance wealth, social status, power, etc.... for the elites owning the porperty , the power
Real socialism is based on autonomy, and collective property power , all the members of the collective can control the power, the decisions , without chief above the collective.
autonomy + private property and power defines the liberal professions, with one person, or associates , but no employees, power an property can change of hands. On the broader societal structure, the ideal model, is the guy alone in the forest who get all power on his property around his house. On political level we have the system that ruled American , British and french societies after the revolutions : riches men vote and are elected in assemblies , taking decisions for their own interest of riches men.
authority + particularism = economy and political power are in the hand of one person ( the proprietary the chief, the king, the lord, the father of the family etc... ) or some peoples ( the elites around the chief in general, or the members of the ruling family ) , the purpose of the economy , and the system are external to the individual ( enterprise, nation, race, religion, etc.... ). Common peoples have no control on the decision on political or economical level.
authority + universalism = the property is collective, but members of the collective, but is lead by an authority who take decisions for the well of the collective of peoples and the abstract community , respect of traditions , with abnegation ( not selfish or egocentric ) . The authority can be a chosen person or a little assemblies ( like circle of the elders ) . The best models are monk communities , Amish or quaker , some Indian societies, and prehistoric societies.
nazism, stalinilm , etc... fit in the case authority + particularism in term of power, the power is in the hand of a chief and some elites, ^purpose of the economy are external and superiors to the peoples. In With Nazism and fascism there was private property, and the economic power was not collective .
It makes them a classic right wing economy.
Then socialism is antagonist to nazism, fascism, stalinism, etc....
1
-
1
-
@mulmeyun
It is an authoritarian ideology, that is all about the in group agaisnt the out-group , then particularist.
Solidarity is only for the in-group. This is a concept the defenders of liberalism have difficulties to understand.
In socialism there is not in-group agaisnt out-group , it is about unity.
Nazis was a far right economy : workers had no rights in the enterprise, no independents unions , strike was forbidden , there was slavery, the nazi elites worked hand in hand with the big capitalism.
In fact many socialist claims in this list are just for propaganda for attracting workers , because they did the reverse.
This why there was the night of the long knifes , for eliminating the worker's wing of the party once at the power ( their purpose was to make believe that nazis had interest for workers ) , they were useless, and annoying for the nazi elite.
I have a wide range view of socialism, but there you are trying to fit a square in a circle. You try to confuse antagonists ideologies.
It is not purity, it is just logic, rationality, etc...
Nazism is about hierarchy, racism, sexism, etc.. then it is very particularist....
Nazis loathe equality and universalism. You don't know what were thinking really the nazis.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Anti-Furry-tm4tr
We are speaking of politic , not economy, the point is about economic power, how workers are treated, etc...
Then what you say is out of subject.
Ilike since the French revolution the ideological antagonism left vs right is about power of all or greater number fortheleft, then including democracy, against power of one or some for the right, including absolutemonarchyordictatorship.
And capitalism is aboutthepowerof somepeoplesoverthemajorityof workers, likenazism is aboutthe powerof o.e, hitler, and somethe nazi élite, thebig capitalists, etc...
They arebothrightwingthen.
Whilesocialism isaboutthe collective power. Of all members of the enterprise/economy. And then it is the most left wing form of economic power.
Capitalism and nazism
1
-
1
-
@danielbowman7226
else saying jokes , you say nothing.
If you don't like name calling respect other peoples by not saying clear counter truths.
You speak about a regime who have practiced slavery, then all what you say about capitalism, workers, etc.. is just a stinky bullshit.
The collaboration between the nazi regime and the big cartels of German industry is a well known fact. Like already said, slavery for the benefice of the big industrial capitalism, is not socialism;, it is the antagonist of socialism.
You are not able to understand the historical and political fact i gave you.
Poor ignorant who have as only reference to socialism or communist the propaganda of totalitarians regimes and dictators. And then then can't have any argument about socialism.
The called communist regimes were not communist, Stalin is to the Russian Revolution what Napoleon was to the French Revolution, he has betrayed the purposes of the Revolution, recreated relations of power like before the revolution, etc.... And stalin recreated exploitation of worker, then it is not socialist or communist.
Mao, the only thing communist with him was the name of his party, when he get in the party there was workers inside, there was communist element, but when he get the power : there was no more workers in his party which became more a party of chinise bourgeois, and workers were not involved in the revolution. Oh and china became a paradise of economic exploitation of the worker then it is not socialist.
They are as socialist than a nation with only economic collective power is capitalist.
Yuu believe in false labels from propaganda.
1