Comments by "" (@Cloud_Seeker) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. Well. He did produce something. You just had to drag it out of him as he hated anything that forced him to work.
    1
  2. Yet people believe he was mad. That he wanted super weapons and stopped the attack on Dunkirk because he wanted to develop this new bomb to attack the beaches with. It isn't just what you pointed out. People have said everything from that he was high on drugs to that his brain didn't work. I meet people shocked at the very idea that he might have been resonable and made logical decisions. I meet people face to face that acting like he was literally mentally insane. They think that because they do not understand what the ideology even say. They do not examine why people believe what they believe. so they fall back to their programing, and when that fail they have no answer and can only say he was "insane" or "mad". Just like people are saying about Putin today. Oh he isn't thinking in ways that make logical sense to Russia and him. He is just completely mad and mentally unhinged.
    1
  3. Those people have no idea what fasicsm even is. They are just using the old classic Soviet tactic of calling everyone that disagree with them a fascist to make the public look at their opponent with a sceptical eye instead of looking at them.
    1
  4. So. When does "heavy regulation" start being "control of"? Maybe businessmen abhor heavy regulations is just because it is the state trying to take over the business without formally taking it over.
    1
  5. When it comes to TIK on his definitions of what corporations are, it is just incorrect. You can just look at your local laws about corporations to see what seperates them. A corporation exist to seperate your personal finances from your business finances. So if the corporate finances goes bad, your private finances are not directly involved. Unless you uses as business model which does that, but then we are talking about very small businesses. What TIK means is that anything that opperates in the public sphere is part of the collective whole, but that is just incorrect. If I have a corpration and 4 employees, it is still a private corporation since I own 100% of that corporation. My employees do not own the corporation, even if we work towards the same goal. For my corporation to be Socialistic in some way, I need to be controlled and owned by the government. I might then opperate like a private corporation, but the ownership is the state and not me. I have critized TIK a lot on this subject as he just wrong.
    1
  6.  @wf4919  I want to point out that "Capitalism" is not an American ideology. There are no "founders" in Capitalism. What you are talking about is Laissez-faire Capitalism. Most "Capitalists" nations are running on a system with a mixed economy. Not pure Capitalism and not pure Socialism. Paying taxes is not the same as being controlled by the state. Having to follow regulations is not being controlled by the state. If you and me live by a lake and I start dumping my sewages into that lake, you are not going to go "well it is a free country so I just have to deal with his sewage". We have to follow laws so we all know what we can or can't do. We pay taxes so we can fund public work that is in the interest of everyone, or fund things to expensive for a few individuals alone. Like public roads and military security. Income tax is not inherently anti-freedom. It is built on the idea that a part of your income should be sent to the state so they can use it to fund goals everyone need or want. Property tax is harder to explain but that doesn't disprove the point that tax by itself is not anti-freedom. The problem I think TIK have is that he thinks "Going public" as in allowing the community as a whole to share the ownership of a corporation is the same as state ownership. That is just incorrect as corporations do not need to go public, and when shareholders buy shares they do not create a state. If I have a corporation and open it up for shareholders and you buy some shares in that corporation. That does not you and me are now in a state together. We might have a connection with each other as you own part of what is my corporation, but that does not mean we have created a government with each other.
    1
  7.  @wf4919  Do you utilize public utilities? Do you utilize police and fire fighters? Just because you do not use fire fighters right now, do you not want them to be on hand and trained before your home catch on fire? If you don't want to pay taxes just move to a place where no one else live. Survive on what nature provide and live the life you want without taxes. I will not stop you. You are not paying taxes just for existing. You are paying taxes because you uses services just for living where you are. Having trained fire fighters cost money to maintain as they are a drain to society as they do not produce anything that can be sold. Just because your home is not on fire does not mean you do not have to pay for having that service available to you. To frame taxes the way you are doing is extremely unfair. You can argue that tax money is being misspent, but you can not honestly say that you are being taxed just for existing while you benefit from a lot of public services.
    1
  8.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Nah. Insurance is a scam. You just keep paying and paying and when it is time to use it they always try to find a way to not pay you, or do it in the cheapest way possible.... Okay government programs are just insurances and are scams.
    1
  9. You got it the wrong way around. Let me correct it for you. Socialists are holocaust denialist because they refuse to recognize that Fascism is socialistic. That's the argument. Stop making strawmen next time.
    1
  10.  @6idangle  "Socialism has nothing to do with the holocaust it is an idea aimed at eliminating class division and breaking down the divisions of race and gender and ending war." - What you just said is the sugarcoated version where everything is perfect and fine. It isn't going to work out that way. Its like saying the holocaust was the removal of national threat to ensure the safety and security for humanity. It is just ignoring how that is going to be achieved. No. To eliminate class division you are going to have to murder people. But even then there will be class divisions as it will always form. Everyone can not have a Lamborghini. You will always have classes being formed as some people are just worth more then others. "Hitler was the exact opposite and was trying to appeal to a broader base by calling himself socialist." - Do you think a society that is a totalitarian dictatorship try to "appeal" to society as a whole? No. Hitler was a socialist no matter how much you want to deny it. You are just trying to redefine what socialism is about so you can remove Hitler from it. Hitler wanted to remove class divisions and make everything owned by a collective organization called the government which means everything is everyones.
    1
  11. Well no. They were not injected as a payment for any product. They were a IOU or promissory note that the government well pay the holder back. You have 100 bucks and I want that right now. I can give you a IOU where I say I will pay you 110 bucks tomorrow if you give me 100 bucks now. You then hold a piece of paper worth 110 bucks that you can demand from me tomorrow. Absolutely no product need to have been made for me to make you this IOU. Even if the MEFO bills were associated with a product that still doesn't change that they inflated the currency. Is the expansion of the money supply that is the inflation. Until debts have been paid, every single MEFO bill have inflated the money supply since you can trade IOU's if you which to.
    1
  12. Noticed what?
    1
  13. Actually. Corporations are specifically created to seperate the individuals personal finances from the corporate finances. They are made that way so the owner can not be forced to give up his/her personal wealth if the corporation fail, and taking money from the corporation and spend it personally is highly illegal. This makes the corporation its own entity not tied to the owner itself, which means they are not privately owned.
    1
  14. Ofc they have. It just doesn't apply to them in this subject. They are knowledge enough for it to not apply you see.
    1
  15. I see you don't know what you are talking about.
    1
  16.  @johnm7267  Even if I give you an answer you are not going to listen.
    1
  17.  @johnm7267  Oh I got answers. I just think I am throwing pearls to swines.
    1
  18.  @johnm7267  I have not made a single insult to you. And I do know where it comes from. Everyone does. It is as famous as turning the other cheek. That you have to play victim just prove I am right about you. I can give you a well crafted response, but all you will do is to trample it and ignore it because you will not listen. You are not open minded to hear anything you don't already agree with. So giving you pearls is a waste of time.
    1
  19.  @mwbright  You are talking BS. You are also having some serious misconception. 1. You forget that it was France that was the biggest problem in Europe at the time. France had the biggest army in the world. Germany only won because they took a massive gamble and it worked. 2. The USSR was NOT a super power and no one considered it a super power. The USSR was a complete mess after the civil war and had not recovered. The whole reason they signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact was because the USSR needed time to gear up for the war, which they had not done when Germany invaded. Which is why Stalin broke down. The initial Allied reaction to the USSR invasion was "Damn. I guess the USSR is gone now". No one expected the USSR to stand up against the Germans. 3. Hitler didn't go to war against everyone at the same time. The UK was only a super power because colonies and those can be blocked through blockades. The goal was also to peace out with the UK after giving them a beating. The USA didn't enter the war until 11 december 1941, and that was because Japan started that war. WW2 started in 1939 btw. So saying Hitler started that war is incorrect. Hitler invaded the USSR in June 22, 1941. The reason for it was because the UK didn't peace out after getting their arse handed to them in France, and Germany needed resources. There also wasn't really anywhere else to go. You either fought a war over the UK and allowed your resources to be drained, or you looked for resources elsewhere. 4. You are making the assumption that the German Generals where always compitent and everything they wanted was just interfeared with because of Hitler. That is incorrect. Many Generals made poor and bad decisions that cost them the war. Want me to give you an example? Look at Romel and Operation Crusader. The battle was so bad for the British that the British lost the battle they started without Romel even knowing it was a real battle. The only reason Romel lost was because Romel decided to take his armor and ride into the sunset leaving the whole army without a command structure as he got stuck behind enemy lines. Is that a compitent move according to you? If Romel did that, what do you think the other generals did? Halder in operation barbarossa changed the whole battle plan and went against direct orders. He wanted to win by taking Moscow and hoping the USSR just surrenders after that, just like the Frence did. However that was never going to happen. You have so many misconceptions are are outright wrong so many times. You don't even know why and when people entered the war. You are also acting as if you are incompetent when you can unite a whole nation and take over most of a continent Europeans have fought literally CENTURIES to attempt to do. Do you have no idea how much of a big deal it is to actually take over Europe? You must be American or something if you think that isn't a big deal.
    1
  20. "In corporations you have winners and losers" -....... What? Just what? Corporations exist to produce value other people want. Who is the loser for the small corporation I work at? We are only 7 people yet we outcompete other corporations with 1000 people. Where is the loser here?
    1
  21.  @rockmcdwayne1710  It is because those people are not honest. Most historians are intellectuals that only live in the academic world. A world dominated by state intervention and state support. They do not live in a world where their ideas have to have a test in reality. They live in a world where they have to impress their own peers and remain within the in-group. If they challenge the in-group they will have ruined their whole lives. If you let private actors do all research they will very much manipulate research to remove bad results that will harm the sale of their product. If you let public actors like the government do all research they will manipulate the results so the statues que will be upheld at all cost. You can not trust that anyone are honest. You have to prove they are not all liars.
    1
  22. This is very much different from Hearts of Iron 4. ITALY!!! STOP INVADING GREECE!!! I made friends with Poland and are waiting for the Soviet to declare was on us so we do not upset the Allies. WHY DID YOU HAVE TO CAUSE THIS TWO FRONT WAR!?!
    1
  23. And fascism is a socialistic ideology end of.
    1
  24. I also have a problem with TIK on this one but I do understand where he comes from. Here is the reason. What TIK is saying is that when a corporation open itself up for stockholders, it open itself up to be publicly owned. It means it is no longer private property as it is communally shared among all stockholders. Nothing prevents all of the workers from buying up the stocks so the workers own the factory. When something is shared among people it is public even if it isn't tied to the government. Something doesn't need to belong to the state to be public. If you should have a society where there is no government and everything is owned by the inhabitants, that should not be a capitalistic society because it is the definition of Communism. He is not technically wrong in calling a corporation that is on the stock market a public corporation. The public is after all invited to buy a share and own a part of it. He just isn't correct in the actual business legislation and how the law view it. But that is also a matter of perspective which we should not tie down words with.
    1
  25. Fiat currency was first used in China around 1000 AD. Yes, Fiat currency was a thing when Marx lived.
    1
  26.  @andylake9793  Okay. I come from Sweden. Do you think you and me is from the same community? Who do you think belong to the same community as you; the Sweds or the Scots? You say a country is made up from many cultures and communities. But as GAC said before. A state is not the same as a nation. However. If you have many incompatible cultures and communities you also have civil war around the corner. Everyone within a state needs to have something which tie them together, something which makes them think "this is my tribe" even if it is filled with people you never meet before. A nation is a community of people. A nation is defined as: "A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." Are you going to tell me that the Welsh, Scots, Irish and the English haven't a shared history? They haven't inhabited a particular territory? They haven't a shared culture and they haven't a shared language? Are you going to tell me that the British didn't fight two world wars and won, is that a lie? Are you going to tell me you share common history and culture with me as a Swed?
    1
  27. Incorrect. You are skipping a step. The word "Fascism" does not derived from the Latin word "Fasces". It is derived from the Italian word "Fascio" meaning "a bundle of sticks". Fasico is in turn derived from the Latin word Fasces that means "bundle". You can't skip a step and make a point about that when that wasn't the word Benito used. The "bundle of sticks" concept is the classic: "A single stick can be easily broken. But a bunch of sticks together can not be broken easily". This concept is a fundamental principle of socialism. It emphasis teamwork, cooperation and everyone doing their part to withstand hardship and achieving a shared goal. I think you are also forgetting Benito said about Fascism. "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" - Benito Mussolini He wanted the state to be connected in everything. In the doctrine of fascism he said he wanted people to treat service to their state like their religion. You did your duty to state without question, and you did it every day without complaining. You go to church you do your religious duty. You go do what the state wants you and you do your civic duty. Also. That link you gave is nothing but nonsense and full of shit. From the very start it creates strawmen of Fascism and Socialism. Like defining that Fascism is always authoritarian and Socialism is not and can not be authoritarian. It define Socialism as system where there is no social division as if Fascism can not do the very same thing. Fact is. Pretty much ANY socialist country in the world is authoritarian. And before you point to Scandinavia I want to say I am Swedish and Scandinavia are not Socialistic. Scandinavia are Social Democratic Capitalistic nations. We lean more toward Socialism the for example the USA, but that does not make us Socialistic. Scandinavia is about as Socialistic as Canadians and Mexians are Americans. Kind of alike, but there is a clear separation between them. They also define Socialism as Communism. Just read the definition. It is so naive it is insane. It will remove all differences between classes so everything will be own by everyone? Fact is that in reality everything isn't worth the same. Cleaning the toilets is not worth the same as the efforts it takes to become a heart surgeon. Lets go through the points: 1. Loaded answer and dishonest. This writer have a clear bias toward socialism. Fact is that the writer ignores leaders like Stalin, Lenin, Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro. I guess this is only about making Fascism stand in a bad light while ignoring the skeleton everywhere else for the "socialism" side. Also. China today is authoritarian. North Korea is authoritarian. USSR was authoritarian. Vietnam today is authoritarian. 2. This is not even true. What the hell does "where state or public ownership of means of production can be seen" even mean? It does not point out what Fascism or Socialism stand for. Fact is. Both Fascism and Socialism say "the means of production belong to the state". There is no difference here. Just a mangled mess to avoid actually answering the question. 3. ..... Right. So the means of production belongs to the public, but I as part of the public can't take my share and cash it out right? No. In Socialism the means of production will still belong to minority of the society which was the wealthy few. Because in Socialism everyone are equal, but some are more equal then others and deserves different treatment. This is how reality looks like. This argument ignores reality and lives in a idealistic world outside of pragmatic facts. The only thing shown here is that fascism unlike socialism are just honest in the outcome. 4. This might actually be correct. However. This shows that this writer is not honest about what Socialism is. Class Conflict is not a concept within Socialism. This is taken from Karl Marx himself. Class Conflict is central to Communism and not Socialism. I believe this writer is making a "difference between Fascism and Communism". 5. Now I know this is about Communism and not Socialism. It also show the writer is subjective about what to bring up from both sides. Are we going to ignore the fact Hitler tried to reform Christianity into "Positive Christianity"? Both Fascism and Communism were opposed to organized religions for the same reason. They offered a separate power structure that took people out of the control of state. Fascism just made Christianity bow to it and step in line. 6. WTF! What even is this? The writer clearly got bored here and just wanted to finish up this strawman of a comparison. Opposite in what way? What does relationship even means? 7. Wow. I am surprised. In a list about differences between Fascism and Communism. They bring up something both share in common. A one party systems. Why even bring something both share in common when you are supposed to show the differences? Bloody nonsense. However. This show one interesting thing. Since Fascism is defined as authoritarian while Socialism is defined "control by the people". How exactly does "the people" control the "public" means of production when there is only one party that controls everything. Doesn't that mean that the "leader" or "leaders" have all power so "they" can say who gets what? No. This is authoritarianism on both sides. The author thinks that when "Socialism" has been complete, the one party system will not be needed anymore. But that will never happen. It does not work in reality because the world is not equal and some people have to work harder then others. There is only one place where everyone is equal and that is at the bottom. This is why you will never have a one party system going away because they will never lower themselves to the bottom when they hold all power in society. They will become dictators and rule through authoritarianism. So. This point is correct. Both sides are authoritarian.
    1
  28. Maybe socialism is actually a pretty simple thing. The complexity comes into play when you want to talk about what kind of socialist you are talking about.
    1
  29. Not really correct. The Semitic people is in fact not a "fictional" group of people. It might be an obsolete term today, but it does include a group of ethnicities that speak the Semitic languages. Those people are in fact very much real and are not fictional. You can be anti-Semitic without looking at "race" or more correctly ethnicities. Christians can be anti-Semitic for religious reasons. Since they do not share the beliefs of either Judaism or Islam. I do hope you know that a Semite is not another word for Jew right?
    1
  30. ​ @enysuntra1347  First of all. There is such a thing as a Semites as it isn't a fictitious group of people. It is an ethnicity. A loose collection of people. We can trace this ethnicity with DNA. You very much failed in your explenation is and isn't irrational. You can be an atheist and disagree with both Christianity and Judaism for irrational and rational reasons. You have not actually explained why Anti-Semitism is irrational. It is not actually discrimination to demand people to work on on saturday or friday after sundown. If that is the contract the employees agreed to, they can not then claim it is discrimination and refuse to do what they agreed to do. They are in fact not actually entitled to the job and they do not actually forced to agree to the contract. It should be discrimination if it isn't actually part of the contract and someone is singled out BECAUSE they are a Jew of a Muslim. But if a Muslim want a job in a grocery store they can not complain about having to handle packaged pork. It is part of the job they wanted. It isn't discrimination. It also isn't discrimination for refusing to rent out rooms that will explicitly used for religious services. There is plenty of people that do not want to live next to ANY kind of religious service. Lets say you are an atheist and just want to be left alone and not be involved in religion. After a few years someone rents out a room next to your room for it to be used as a Mosque. Now all of the sudden you are surrounded by Muslims, you encounter people you have never seen before and you are forced to be interact with religion on a constant basis. It might even be a Mosque that is directly tied with extremeist groups such as Isis. This is the exact reasons why neighbors tend to have a say in the matter, and why you are not entitled to set up an establishment whereever you want and no one have anything to say about it. All of this applies just as much to Churches and synagogues. I think you need to actually do some serious thinking before you open your mouth. A lot of what you just said is nonsense.
    1
  31. I just want to give a hint. Use puctuations. Your first sentance is 106 words long (if we exclude what is in the parentheses). There is no way anyone can say all of that within a single breath and it become hard to read.
    1
  32.  @ilirlluka6789  No it is a genuine advice. I got dyslexia and I hate the grammar N*is as much as you do. But 106 words is way to much. People are not going to read what you have to say when it becomes to hard to read. A sentence should be able to be said in a single breath. If you can't do that, restructure your sentence. At least if you want people to read what you have to say.
    1
  33.  @ilirlluka6789  Well it isn't debilitating. You just have to spend a lot more effort and energy into reading and writing. I actually ended above my peers in most subjects back when I was in school. You can just consider it that I have to spend 3x the time and energy to read the same passage you do and read it correctly.
    1
  34. TIK you missed a point about Hitler. He was rejected from art school, but he was recommended to become an architect instead. He wasn’t able to become one however as he didn’t have the grades for it.
    1
  35.  @mikemcmike6427  How about you learn to write so you can actually form a complete sentence. You make no sense at all.
    1
  36.  @imatreebelieveme6094  What does the current system have anything to do with any of this? The "state ownership or control" is not something "capitalists" have invented. Socialism is ancient. The definition is also ancient. When someone say to you that Socialism must include class struggle, the definition of Marxism, for it to be socialism. That is where you got the liar. They are shifting the goal post.
    1
  37.  @julymagnus493  "I would just point out that no socialists claim or support Hitler and be done with it." - If you are going to ignore every single person that claimed they were socialists and joined the Nazis. You are really dishonest here because you have just outright ignored everyone that did. You are simply lying by saying that no one supported Hitler. How many support Hitler today is irrelevant.
    1
  38.  @julymagnus493  The point is that you are being dishonest. You are acting like the Nazis did not have popular support in all branches of society. Both capitalists and socialists at the time supported him. You are saying no one has ever supported him, which is an outright lie. You can not honestly believe that if you have any knowledge of history. Because it doesn't matter if socialist support him today. That doesn't make his ideology less socialistic. Popular support today does not define who is and isn't a socialist. Therefor. Modern support is irrelevant when we talk about people in the past. For obvious reasons.
    1
  39.  @julymagnus493  And you are lying with that sentence. Because Nazis are socialists. It is clearly obvious that Nazis support Hitler. No. The second paragraph is not cope. You can not ask modern people to show what someone in the past was. Popular support today is irrelevant to the past. You can not deny history with opinions of today. It isn't how time works.
    1
  40.  @dahlizz99  No. Not everyone seems to know this. Calling people a Nazi has been a thing for such a long time and no one wants to be associated with them. So when there is serious overlap it has to be explained away, or even better, blame your opposition to be the "real" nazis. There is also a serious problem where people do not actually listen to what the nazis said about their own ideology. What people listen to is other people having their opinions about them as taking the opinions from the actual source is taboo.
    1
  41.  @PantheraKitty  How was the nazis economy a "mixed" economy? Sure. They didn't directly took control over the economy like in Russia, but they also insituated a controlled market with price crontrols, price commissars and indirect control over all businesses. When you say "mixed economy" you mean that there is publicly funded businesses like hospitals, police, road maintenance and so on. And then having private corporations outside of government control. This just wasn't the case. The government did control the businesses, they did control the economy. Maybe not directly and with a heavy hand like in Russia, but you most certainly were not free. There was no mixing of the economy. There was a different version of a socialist marketplace.
    1
  42.  @PantheraKitty  The nazis were not far-right. They do not fall into the far-right of today as well. If you look at ideologies and beliefs. The Soviet Union should be by today be called "far-right". Far right does not mean anything. It is just a derogatory term used as a new word to call someone a nazi. That is the only thing it means.
    1
  43.  @PantheraKitty  And yet they were not. For example they outlawed religion and made "possitive christianity". They paid lip service to the aristocracy, but never actually cared about them and their opinions. Also censervative to what? Also why do you say "right wing" is about being conservative? Are you saying that you can't be left wing and a conservative? Then what was all those hardcore old guards in the Soviet Union that refused change and wanted to keep the old system? Do you know what being a conservative means? It is not a statement of left or right wing. It means you want to preserve something. Are you seriously going to sit there and say the "left-right spectrum doesn't work for a lot of things" and then use that same exact system to say who is and isn't right and left wing? Dude. Hypocrite much? Also. No, they did not have a market economy. If you do not have a free market you do not have a market at all. Are you just going to ignore that the market in nazi germany collapsed long before they lost the war? It was so bad that they placed the official price on the front of stuff, and the the real price on the back because they had to skirt the rules. They bought new trucks only to get the tires and scraped the rest for scrap metal. They did not have a market economy. They had a market failure and a failing economy.
    1
  44.  @mikemcmike6427  Did private farmers sell their grain to private millers for the price THEY set or the price set by the government? The answer is that they were not allowed to set their own price. Which means they didn't actually own the grain. It was controlled by the government. They also didn't own their own farm or mill. They were the overseers and managers of the business. That can you directly found in the book The vampire economy by Gunter Reimann. A German communist living in Nazi germany. The factory owner did not own the factory anymore. They only managed it for the benefit of the government. After the reichstag fire decree you no longer had a right to own your own property. At any point the government was legally allowed to take however much they wanted from you without giving any of it back. If you owned it, they were not allowed to or had to compensate you for what they took. Since they didn't have to, you didn't own anything. I can not give you any link because if I do Youtube will automatically remove the comment. However you can not even try to say that a political system where the point is to have both private ownership AND a planned economy doesn't have the planned economy. The problem is simple logic. How do you have a planned economy when you do not have ownership over the means? The answer is, you do not. If you want something to read just to prove the point that nazi germany had fixed prices and a planned economy I will point you to Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s by Peter Temin. Please continue to argue against something everyone know the Nazis did. "So Saudi Arabia is a socialist nation?" - How is this relevant to the debate? "By your logic any powerful, meddling or authoritarian government or theocracy is socialist?" - Do you even know the definition of what socialism is? The definition is pretty clear. Socialism is a ideology where the means of production and resources and owned or cotrolled by the state. You can be a powerful government without being a socialist. You can be a meddling government without being a socialist. You can be a theocracy without being a socialist for the simple fact a theocracy does not actually imply it is the state, nore what the religion actually believe in. Do you know what a theocracy actually is? Authoritarian however. Can you please point me to the authoritarian government that does not claim to be the state and does not want to have control over the society they rule? I think you do not really understand what socialism actually is. Socialism is about who has control. Socialism wants "public" (or more correctly, the political elites of a society) control. Capitalism however want private control.
    1
  45.  @PantheraKitty  They never outlawed religion? Then what happened to the Jews? Did I miss something or was that group of people never specifically targeted in WW2? I guess you didn't get the point. The claim was that the Nazis were conservatives as all hell. Which makes it very interesting that they were very much against any religious establishment. People like Joseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg, Martin Bormann, and Heinrich Himmler were aggressive anti-Church radicals. Sure. It was because it was a competing institution. But to say they were conservatives when they openly hated some of the oldest establishments there are. Now that is something. Typically conservatives tend to like old established things like that. Idk. Maybe your idea of conservatism just isn't the same as everyone else idea and the dictionary. To me it seems they were more radicals that wanted to change the country and culture rather rapidly. They might have been conservatives by todays standard, but that is also a not very honest argument to make. "You're a willful idiot. Indeed Nazism can't be placed on a left-right spectrum. Did you even read what I was trying to say?" - I have but you clearly have not. What I see from you is a hypocrite. Will dismiss the right-left spectrum when it suits you, but then use it as soon as it is useful to you. "They absolutely had a market economy, because they had uhh markets and private corporations and all the good stuff. Uh what collapsed? During the war it collapsed? Did you just learn this new fact about the war? You're trolling now. Lol, very funny." - You have not actually looked into the economy of Germany. That is clear from what you have said here. Do you not understand that the only reason Germany looked like it was float was BECAUSE of the war? It was a facade. It was all fake. Hitler knew why Germany lost WW1 so he always aimed to keep the population away from understanding what was going on. The Nazis stole and plundered every other nation to give it to the people of Germany. Do you think they starved the people of Greece for nothing or to live in luxury? They stole all of the food because Germany wasn't able to produce enough. Germany should have starved instead, and that should have meant a loss of support. They stole money, wealth and resources from everywhere because they had to. They had to go to war because they had to. There was no other choice. If they shouldn't had gone to war all of their social programs and projects should have ruined the nation which means the nazis should no longer be able to hold power.
    1
  46.  @trolldatshityeahyou4001  If you take a look into The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile you can see that Fascism is based on the "worship of the state". In the book Fascism is described as a form of religion, where everyone and everything should belong to the "church" aka state. There is no way you can look at the ideology of Fascism and deny it is Socialistic.
    1
  47.  @gregb6469  It respond on trigger words. However. Lately I found them almost relaxed. I have been able to explain the entire problem with why the Sweden government has fallen and not one comment has been removed. I find that strange since they used to remove them for just saying "immigration".
    1
  48.  @gregb6469  Do you think Youtube who are run by woke left wing ideologists care? Do you think an Algorithm knows the difference? Some time ago, Youtube attacked anything that even talked about WW2. Several history channels had their whole channels removed just because they covered the history of WW2. Do you seriously think Youtube are competent or honest enough to allow you to have an honest debate? They are more then willing to use censorship for "the good of everyone".
    1
  49. I prefer to disagree with the EU part.
    1
  50. Apart from that Alex Jones is actually correct in his lunacy. Chemicals did actually turn frogs gay. It is often a sign of heavily pollution. When marine animals start to become something they shouldn't be, it often means they have been living in toxic water.
    1