Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
>In 1936 a German man could borrow money from a privately owned German bank
They were subordinate the Reichsbank.
>He could hire employees
Doesn't make them not socialist.
>and sell whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted
I know you are trying to claim that this was a free market, but there were price controls on every. A peasant was arrested and put on trial for having
repeatedly sold his old dog together with a pig. When a private buyer of pigs came to him, a sale was staged according to the official rules. The buyer would ask the peasant: "How much is the pig?" The cunning peasant would answer: "I cannot ask you for more than the official price. But how much will you pay for my dog which I also want to sell?" Then the peasant and the buyer of the pig would no longer discuss the price of the pig, but only the price of the dog. They would come to an understanding about the price of the dog, and when an agreement was reached, the buyer got the pig too. The price for the pig was quite correct, strictly according to the rules, but the buyer had paid a high price for the dog. Afterward, the buyer, wanting to get rid of the useless dog, released him, and he ran back to his old master for whom he was indeed a
treasure [Vampire Economy, Mises Institute, Page 85]
>He could even incorporate his business and sell stocks to the public via a stock exchange.
Public? Sounds pretty commie to me.
>Not to mention a significant percent of the Nazi budget was derived from the privatization of businesses.
Citation needed.
>Oh, and they lowered taxes on corporations.
"You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet
everyone is afraid to complain about it. The new State loans
are nothing but confiscation of private property, because no one believes that the Government will ever make repayment, nor even pay interest after the first few years." - Vampire Economy, Page 24
"Industrialists complained that some 80 to 90 percent of business profits were being
siphoned off by the state. This figure is clearly exaggerated, but it speaks volumes about the Nazi government’s basic tax-policy orientation." - Hitler's Beneficiaries, Page 68
>And the government issued bonds.
How does this make them not socialist?
>And real estate could be privately bought and sold.
“For the purpose of protecting the peasantry as the ‘Blood Source of the German People’, the law proposed to create a new category of farm, the Erbhof (hereditary farm), protected against debt, insulated from market forces and passed down from generation to generation within racially pure peasant families. The law applied to all farms that were sufficient in size to provide a German family with an adequate standard of living... but did not exceed 125 hectares.” - Wages of Destruction, Page 182
>None of this was possible in the Soviet Union and ALL of this is anathema to socialist theory.
"Socialism is when there is unemployment, and it's more unemployment the more socialist it is and when it is 100% unemployment, it's communism." - Karl Marx apparently
>What kind of "socialist" lowers taxes on large corporations and expands the power of the private sector?
What kind of capitalist raises taxes, has a central bank, prints money or prevents the free exchange of goods and services?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Gvjrapiro In any case, you don't have a leg to stand on when you say TIK said Amazon is Marxist when you neither provide proof that he said this and the fact that the very video you are commenting on contains evidence to the contrary.
Sounds pretty public to me.
A debate about the nature of private property doesn't negate the fact that on the principle of non-contradiction, you either support private property, or you don't
Oh, and if you are wondering why I used the singular, it's because the whole voluntary slavery debate isn't a debate, as for you to transfer ownership of yourself to someone else, you would have to be able to transfer control of yourself to someone else, which you can't.
Depends on what one sees "income" as.
The source being a book doesn't necessarily mean that it is right. Any other source would tell you that it was Heywood's quote, including this one: https://quotefancy.com/quote/1781608/Ezra-Heywood-Interest-is-theft-Rent-Robbery-and-Profit-Only-Another-Name-for-Plunder
"And as we've been over, markets to do necessitate capitalism"? Great! I suppose Benjamin Tucker was, therefore, the first anarcho-capitalist when he wrote in State Socialism and Anarchism "[p]rotection they [The Anarchists] look upon as a thing to be secured, as long as it is necessary, by voluntary association and cooperation for self-defence, or as a commodity to be purchased, like any other commodity, of those who offer the best article at the lowest price." My, sounds like laissez-faire heaven!
The fact that I worked for it.
Ah yes, a single article by Rothbard, Right Wing Populism. An absolute quote mine for his detractors. He considered the possibility of allying with right-wing populists, laid down a program for right-wing populists which is where you get the quote about the criminals and bums from, and then discussed alternative roots to power. And he even brought up the fact that right-wing populists and libertarians disagreed on family values such as libertarian support for abortion, pornography and prostitution.
You are correct if you mean by "warped" you meant "applied classical liberalism and Austrian economics".
Evidently, I have not heard of Mises's supposed appraisal of the Nazis. I have heard that he apparently praised fascism in his book Liberalism, but if you look at what he said, it is much more along the lines of "socialism and fascism aren't good, fascism does seem less not good than socialism, so if a gun was on my head, I would pick fascism." Not exactly endearing.
I'd say the justificative section of my argument was very necessary.
Many people have created cults of personalities, none of which devolved into hereditary dictatorships. And you are going to need to specify on which specific policies he put in place before the 1970s that even without hindsight you could be certain would devolve into a hereditary dictatorship.
You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary, so yes.
Those quotes don't, but you might recall I provide further information on the antisemitism in Fascist Italy.
Give me some of those statements that precede 1922.
Mussolini never introduced any racial policies.
We aren't just speaking about his misteress, we are speaking about a third of the adult Jewish population of Italy. If Mussolini was so anti-semitic, why did he not kick them out of his party prior to him getting closer to Hitler?
Italians were considered to be part of the race including the Irish and Slavs.
Ok, do you want some statements? Here are a few from his pamphlet "The Syndical Revolution":
"A return to syndical methods of combating capitalism offers new hope of emancipating the British workers and preserving their hard won liberties."
"The answers to these questions are becoming ever more clear as the experiment in socialism proceeds. To begin with, the real motive of the British workers in giving their support to a Socialist party was to get rid of the capitalist “boss-class” and thus escape from exploitation. Bitter is their disappointment to find that they have merely exchanged masters."
"Syndicalism on the other hand can restore the long lost freedom of the British worker by restoring his control over the tools of his craft and the means of his livelihood."
I say he probably believed that syndicalism was defined that way because he defines it that way in his pamphlet entitled "Syndicalism - A Third Way":
"Syndicalism stands for Workers' Control of Industry. The term "worker" covers managers, technicians and operatives, these expressions indicating functions and not social position. It is from the ranks of these workers that chairmen, directors and other executives will be elected by the Assemblies, as against, under capitalism, by the shareholders."
I presume he wanted workers to remain equal in the ownership of their business by virtue of this quote:
" A return to syndical methods of combating capitalism offers new hope of emancipating the British workers and preserving their hard won liberties."
Again, he was inconsistent in his support of private property. Socialists like Kim Il-Sung have abolished the income tax and why wouldn't Mosley want to purge socialists since, in his own words "The low-wage countries of Asia are being exploited industrially for still bigger profits than those made by capitalism in the West. As a result, British workers face the certainty of losing their markets to sweatshops in Asia financed by the money lenders of Europe and America. The International Socialism of the Labour Party has failed completely to deal with this menace." This is from his pamphlet European Socialism.
And I have read the source in question.
Of course, I doubt Sowell is a segregationist, you haven't provided a shred of proof proving that he is! And you can disagree with someone on some topics and agree with him on others. Take, for example, Karl Marx. I disagree with Marx on economics, but he had very agreeable opinions on gun rights.
Boycotts serve as incentives. They are incentives, and they don't necessarily force a business to do one thing or another. After all, they may not be successful.
Sure, buddy.
Your counter is just saying that there are undeniàlinks between nationalism, colonialism, imperialism, profit, and religion. We brought up examples, and I took them apart showing there are reasons besides nationalism explaining these events.
-Examples, please.
-I don't recall reading about the great 8th Coalition forged to take down Prussia.
-I do. Explain how Russia would have supported Austria since the Austrians didn't help Russia in the Crimean War.
-You haven't given me the name of a single power that actively fought against Italian unification.
There seems to be a historical trend for nationalist movements not to go claim superiority, not to "not remain nationalistic".
I'm taking a cursory look at Polish politics, and all I am seeing is that it is a unitary semi-presidential constitutional republic...
2
-
@Gvjrapiro Yes, he criticised the UK branch of Amazon for giving into pressure that they resisted for many years and banning a book that puts Hitler's idiocy on full display. At no point did he say that Amazon was therefore a Marxist organisation and should be disbanded.
Any economist will tell you that many of these corporations are publicly held companies.
People don't support private property in all cases because they don't believe that, for example, intellectual property is property. Mosley still sees the property he would steal for the benefit of the nation as private property. The point being, it is a false equivalence to compare someone who believes that pretended property is exactly that and therefore doesn't believe in it, and a person who thinks that something that is definitely property and it is OK to steal it for the benefit of the people.
The thing is, whether I am actually wearing blue socks is up for debate, and nobody has argued that I am wearing blue socks since the early 2000s.
Depends on what someone sees "more" as.
The author of the book you cited said that Ezra Heywood said that quote [ https://uncletaz.com/liberty/heywood.html ] so what most likely happened was that someone on Wikipedia misread the source, misattributed the quote to Tucker, and then you looked on Wikipedia and also misattributed the quote to Tucker, without even doing the most basic fact check?
Statism, yes. Necessarily bad, no.
You just said a couple of comments ago "[a]nd as we've been over, markets to do necessitate capitalism." Changed your mind since a couple of days ago, eh?
I feel the need to point out that this quote on millionaires actually comes from Victor S. Yarros [ Yarros, V. (1936). Philosophical Anarchism: Its Rise, Decline, and Eclipse. American Journal of Sociology ].
To be technical, I traded my earned currency for a pen. The pen is mine, the currency no longer is.
OK, so he was the original believer in right unity. He doesn't say anything on family values, other than it should be part of a right-wing populist programme. And yes, contextualising these quotes are important: he was laying down a right-wing populist programme based on his observances, and he at most said something along the lines of "they aren't contradictory to libertarian principles, necessarily".
If by "capitalist" you mean "classical liberalism and Austrian economics" you are correct.
I never said that was what Mises directly said, I just said Mises said something along the lines of that. If you want the actual quote, here it is "This moderation is the result of the fact that traditional liberal views still continue to have an unconscious influence on the Fascists. But however far this may go, one must not fail to recognize that the conversion of the Rightist parties to the tactics of Fascism shows that the battle against liberalism has resulted in successes that, only a short time ago, would have been considered completely unthinkable. Many people approve of the methods of Fascism, even though its economic program is altogether antiliberal and its policy completely interventionist, because it is far from practicing the senseless and unrestrained destructionism that has stamped the Communists as the arch-enemies of civilization. Still others, in full knowledge of the evil that Fascist economic policy brings with it, view Fascism, in comparison with Bolshevism and Sovietism, as at least the lesser evil. For the majority of its public and secret supporters and admirers, however, its appeal consists precisely in the violence of its methods." Liberalism, page 62.
Now that is an actual quote, go look it up, it is in the PDF provided by FEE. Where is your proof Mises said anything you said he did?
That wasn't my justificative clause, that was my judgement clause.
I know that cults of personality lead to dictatorships, I am wondering whether they lead to HEREDITARY dictatorships. Sure, they are arguably ripe for a monarchy, but many totalitarian states have remained republics, how was Kim to know in the 1970s that his state would devolve into a hereditary dictatorship?
Oh really then, well it shouldn't be too hard for you you to simply copy and paste your evidence to the contrary.
Oh, I do. Do you remember when I said "She, and 10,000 other Jewish people, a third of the adult Jewish population in Italy, was part of the National Fascist Party (Source: Mussolini: A New Life by Nicholas Burgess Farrell)"? If you think it has no basis in reality, take it up with Nicholas Farrell, I guess.
Because Mussolini wanted to get closer to Hitler in 1938, and adopted anti-semitic policies to please him.
Oh really? Which racial law did Mussolini introduce prior to 1938?
Again, if you think it has no basis in reality, take it up with Farrell. I am making statements like a third of the adult Jewish population was n the Italian fascist party, which you do not attempt to refute.
Yes, Mussolini did kick the Jews out, but this can be more easily explained by him wanting to ally with Hitler.
Italians were considered to be part of the same race as Slavs. Here is a map by Madison Grant, an influential Nordicist: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg
Oh my God, you are looking at the wrong pamphlet. That is "The Syndical Revolution" you are citing, and I used "Syndicalism - A Third Way" as a citation for his definition of syndicalism.
Workers don't get a say in technocracy.
Syndical = in the manner of a syndicate = in the manner of a trade union. Delegate staff of trade union representation in the workforce are made up of workplace volunteers who are appointed by members in democratic elections. Seems fairly egalitarian to me.
It does. Something cannot be A and not A at the same time.
Kim Il-Sung wasn't a monarchist.
Yes, International Socialism like that done by the Labour Party wasn't his goal. Syndicalism, which is a type of socialism, is, however.
That is a shame.
His criticism was not when the Supreme Court desegregated schools, he said that set into motion events that destroyed Dunbar. DC's school system was completely reorganised, and all schools became neighbourhood schools. Dunbar was in the middle of a ghetto, and as such, the school became bad. He points out that DC could have easily pushed for a policy of integration rather than neighbourhood schools.
The thing is, a vote by the shareholders is binding. Boycotts are non-binding.
It is, truly?
Yes, and we went through them and I have shown why they didn't work, like for example, money. You hilariously implied that Cecil Rhodes was the leader of Britain and that Belgium had an imperial cult, like Japan.
-There was no German War of Independence and an Italian state, Lombardia-Venetia actually supported the Austrians.
-I pointed out there was no coalition against Prussia
-"Cuck" as defined by Urban Dictionary is "to allow oneself or one's allies to be taken advantage of or defied knowingly or unknowingly by a malicious enemy or group of enemies." During the Crimean War, Austria allowed Russia to be defied knowingly by a group of enemies. Therefore, "cucked" is completely appropriate terminology to describe what happened between Austria and Russia during the Crimean War. And, this wasn't just any old war, this was the Crimean War, a complete embarrassment for Russia as they had to scuttle their Black Sea Fleet and they couldn't steamroll countries like everyone had expected them to. Russia was not happy with Austria hanging them up to dry.
-The Austrians, supported by Lombardia-Venetia, an Italian State... yeah this seems like a more Sardinian War of Independence.
They have let go of their nationalism? Ask the average Catholic Irish if they want to be part of England again, for example. If you are lucky, you will be speaking to a Catholic south of the border, and you will be laughed at. If you are unlucky, you will be speaking to a Catholic north of the border, and you will be petrol bombed. But the Irish have abandoned nationalism, amirite?
Right, so I am looking closer, and it seems that the government under PiS seems to be violating the Polish constitution. Still looking for "powinniśmy ponownie otworzyć Trebinkę dla Rosjan".
2
-
@Gvjrapiro I have watched it, and nowhere does he call Amazon Marxist. You have yet to provide any proof that he has called Amazon Marxist, so I am going to be dismissing your point on that.
Which economists? Keynesians and Marxians don't count.
The roads weren't stolen from anyone though. Mosley is planning on stealing property. That is the difference, if you support stealing, you don't support private property.
Again, nobody has argued that I am wearing blue socks, so with the best information we have now, I am still wearing all red.
Not a non-argument, you are just realising that the subjective theory of value is true.
Yes, I do, here is the quote from the article I posted: "He followed closely the motto that Ezra Heywood had printed in large letters over his desk: "Interest is Theft, Rent Robbery, and Profit Only Another Name for Plunder."" The author said that Ezra Heywood invented the motto, and Tucker only followed it. Come on, if 3 websites at this point, including in an article the author the book wrote, has said that Ezra Heywood said the quote, take the L and accept that the Wikipedian that wrote Tucker's article misattributed the quote to Tucker.
I am a socialist? And who said I wasn't left-wing?
If I was feeling malicious, I would say it was the most coherent thing you said so far.
"The four major monopolies which he attacked were land, money and banking, trade, patents and copyright." This Benjamin Tucker fellow sounds like an ancap.
How is it not an amazing system? It is the basic division of labour.
I did say "right unity". If you can think of a better, more concise description, lay it on me. Bonus points if you can find a way of doing it without "Nazi", "racist", or "kkk". Firstly, he didn't support traditional values, only that they would have to compromise on some to achieve goals, and he certainly didn't believe in imposing them on people by force! He didn't say that this was a programme he agreed with either he just said that it wasn't necessarily contradictory to libertarianism.
Not warped, in fact, Rothbard probably did the most to make individualist anarchism make the most sense. Possession makes sense with the classical liberal view of the labour theory of property. Markets make sense with the Austrian School observation that there is an ex-ante mutual profit in voluntary trade. Competition makes the most sense with the Austrian school's economic calculation problem.
All the quote proves is that Mises considered fascism to have temporarily saved Europe. Nothing about private property at all, and he says that because of the liberal, so to speak, violence, fascism is contradictory to liberalism.
My justificative clause matters.
So you have conjecture. Right.
Nope, I asked for you to copy and paste the evidence you supposedly provided against me. But you do provide evidence of Mussolini's racism and anti-Semitism, so let's analyse them:
The first and second quotes were from his lover's diary, so it is hearsay, and it was said during the Sudeten Crisis in August 1938, around the same time that Mussolini began getting closer to Hitler.
And that quote was said after the formation of the Rome-Berlin Axis. Not exactly distant from Hitler then, eh?
No doubt Mussolini was concerned about "Jugo-slavs" settling in Dalmatia. Entente promises that Italy would get Dalmatia was one of the primary reasons why Italy even joined the war in the first place, so why wouldn't Mussolini be concerned over not getting land they were promised and sacrificed half a million men for?
I won't be claiming my citation is untrustworthy because that quote had nothing to do with syndicalism. Mosley was criticising Labour socialism and nationalisation in the passages you provided because he believed that it had failed to achieve freedom for the workers.
I do. Power (cracy) to the skilled (techno). Notice there is nothing about demo (people) in there.
We aren't speaking about B or C, we are speaking about A.
Really? I don't remember Kim saying that he was a monarchist, but do give me evidence to the contrary. Hereditary dictatorships don't count, they can still be republics.
According to you, a man supporting something that he defined as "Worker's Control of Industry" and that workers will elect "chairmen, directors and other executives" means that they support technocracy-corporatism. I see.
And yes, it does sound like support for socialism. Why should the small shopkeeper be forced to syndicalise when he isn't employing anyone? Why should family farms be syndicalised when they aren't employing anyone either? If rejecting Labour socialism as Mosley did makes someone not a socialist, then by that logic is Karl Marx not a socialist for rejecting utopian socialism?
What less could you expect from me?
Nope, his criticism of the DC school system was not the fact that it had integrated, it was the fact that it had adopted neighbourhood schools instead of integration. If it had been integrated, the most extensive effect would be there would be white students at Dunbar. Since there were neighbourhood schools instead, it wasn't the best and brightest blacks going to Dunbar, it was the kids from the nearby ghetto.
Still doesn't change the fact the result of a vote by the shareholders is binding, whereas a boycott is not.
Yes, yes really.
All right, well look up. I said "As for who they were trying to get currency for, I can direct you to Cecil Rhodes and King Leopold 2: Crimes Against Humanity Boogaloo, not your average British taxpayer", you said, "And yeah, they were trying to get currency for their leader... you know, the person they thought was chosen by god to lead their superior nation to prosperity?" To which I mocked you for thinking that Belgium had an imperial cult.
-Von Metternich resigned in 1848. Show me, was there any desire to unite Germany before them? Unifying a country takes time, you know.
-But I did.
-Firstly, red herring, ad hominem, and "cope" is a psychological term. Secondly, if you are denying that the Crimean War caused Russia to split ties with Austria, permanently, it is you who needs to take the introductory course in pre-WW1 Europe.
-Yes, there were multiple Italian states that Sardinia was trying to unify i.e. under the Sardinian crown which would thereby make these states less independent, so an Italian state tried to protect their sovereignty.
Perhaps you should have found a better example than the Yankees for your case. American exceptionalism and all.
Oh, so I need to take more than a cursory glance? Well, why didn't you tell me this before!
2
-
@Gvjrapiro I've watched "Amazon (UK) pressured into banning Mein Kampf and other historical Primary Sources" once, I have watched it twice, and nowhere does he call Amazon a Marxist organisation. You are going to need to timestamp the point where he called Amazon Marxist in the video if I am going to believe you.
Yes, I am asking for which specific capitalist economists, and what quotes do you have to prove that they support corporations?
So Mosley planned on making private property more efficient by violating private property rights. Interesting logic you have going on there.
You are arguing I am wearing blue socks, but you don't support socks (private property) and no capitalist has argued I am wearing blue socks since the 2000s. It is interesting to note, however, is that you are saying that I am wearing blue socks and not all red because I am saying you cannot transfer ownership of yourself to someone else, so it is interesting to note that you believe in voluntary slavery.
Never said you believe in the LTV.
I think that if you write down a quote first, it does mean you're the first to come up with it. Ezra Heywood wrote down the quote first, hence he was the first to come up with it. All your other quote proves was that he was against wage labour. Oh, and I feel the need to point out that he said that in an article where he was arguing against communism.
Only when Nazi arguments against me devolve into "closet commie" or something along those lines.
Well, you should.
I'm, sorry, what did you say? No capitalists ever advocated for central banking and tariffs, and many, many capitalists oppose IP. And by the way, it is not "an"cap, it is an"cap".
Prove that the paper is valueless, and why should I, a general, make my own pens when I am better at leading offensives into Somalia, and the pen manufacturer make his own offensives into Somalia when he is better at making pens? Surely we should trade using a common medium of exchange?
That term has 23 characters and spaces, mine has 11 characters and spaces, so you get nothing. Of course Rothbard wants to allow prayer in public schools, Rothbard is a libertarian, after all, with emphasis on the "liber".
Property is a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively. Property is possession. They may not make sense viewed through capitalist lenses, but they do make sense being viewed through Austrian lenses. And where was I saying I didn't reject anarchism?
Rothbard said what? Citations, please.
But it does matter.
I do have a rebuttal, you are just realising the best evidence you have for Kim being a monarchist is conjecture.
No, you haven't.
Firstly, they are the diaries of Mussolini's mistress, not Mussolini himself, so historians caution they should be taken with an extra grain of salt. Secondly, his mistress saying that he said he was racist since 1921 isn't sufficient evidence. Thirdly, why do you focus on Mussolini? We are speaking about Italian Fascism in general, not just one man, after all.
No, I have been saying that racial policies in Italy coincided with Mussolini wanting to forge an alliance with Hitler. Much of this happened in 1938, but the Rome-Berlin Axis had existed since 1936, so it is possible for some racial rhetoric to exist at that point.
Mussolini was clearly using a synecdoche.
Mosley supported private property and not the "syndicalisation" of businesses? Prove it.
In this case, it does. Technocracy as defined by the OED is "the government or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts." Notice the lack of elections. Secondly, of course, I am not a Tory.
But it did pertain to the situation.
So how does this prove he is a monarchist exactly? All this proves is that Kim thinks there should be a hereditary dictatorship.
Look, if you want the full quote, here it is: "Syndicalism stands for Workers' Control of Industry. The term "worker" covers managers, technicians and operatives, these expressions indicating functions and not social position. It is from the ranks of these workers that chairmen, directors and other executives will be elected by the Assemblies, as against, under capitalism, by the shareholders." So everybody in the syndicate gets a vote on who fills these positions. Sounds like workplace democracy to me.
You are only invading Denny's if Denny's doesn't want you there. Oh yeah, and if you want what the man stands for, see above.
But you can.
Nope, he is clearly opposing the neighbourhood school system, not integration, which he clearly states.
The corporation is under no legal obligation to respond to a boycott. It is under a legal obligation to respect a referendum of the shareholders.
Yes, yes really.
Oh really? If I were to go to Belgium, would I be told that Leopold II was the incarnation of the Holy Ghost and that he was the bond between Heaven and Earth? Because that's what happens in countries that actually have imperial cults, not monarchies just over 200 years old that get their powers from a constitution.
-Were these events crushed by the Austrian diplomat?
-Citation needed.
-Where did I use "cope" in this discussion, how is criticising the use of terminology not a red herring and how is calling me a child with no responsibility that spends all day on Twitter and Reddit, not an ad hominem? ANd no, you are denying the Austrian geopolitical situation after the Crimean War, it is you who needs to take that introductory course.
Europeans show the tendency better than Americans? Honestly, do you know how many nationalist movements are in Europe?
I do. I hope you would understand lying about Polish politics was not a sound debating strategy by now, but, I have been contradicted.
in general, I have found your extensive use of ad hominems, red herrings and straight up denialism thoroughly unconvincing. Since, there is no way I can get through to a denialist like yourself, (and you are a denialist I provided quotes by the man himself and you are still trying to find one way to squeeze capitalism out of it, and you must deny Austro-Russian relations in order to make some of your points work) I shall take my leave of you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2