วีดีโอ

(It infact did not blow up..yet)

Warhammer 40K

#End of Atheism, long live empire, long live Jesus

@@Dovglas-nr5ul agree 👍

Well ye dictatorship regimes are always more effective in like everything they wanna do, problem is in what cost?. We just cannot "create" ideal dictator who will be fair and incorruptible. There are many examples of exellent dictators over milenia, but their successors were not that great and those mans are realy realy rare

It all hinges on the variable of a government centered around love of one's people, to the point of religious zeal. "My Struggle" by a certain Austrian art student provides a strong foundation on how to bring a nation together. It's reviled by main stream society because it is a serious threat to the preexisting order that seeks to keep our wings clipped.

Take on me

@@seniforu3042 and for the end what this i need that after be punished during school lol

@MalumAtheist66 Hell yeah.

indeed

Deutsche qualität

Starship Troopers

Does that make him an orc?

Google "Desmond is Amazing" and you'll realize that the sexual revolution was a mistake

@@directrulefromgamerchair3947 Not just the 2° Sexual Revolution but everything after the French revolution was also a mistake

Napoleon was a great emperor who distrusted British capitalism and materialism and if he had won Europe would be in a much better place.

@@comradecommissar311 Ironic you put it that way, because if I recall he throw out the Revolutionary leaders/politicians that started the French Republic, ie the first generation of Socialist as we know it, who pre-date Marxsonian ideals of class warfare, and his insanely antisemitic core which was a Catylist to the big H a few generations later. The primary reason for the Reign of Terror in France is some how so bloody celebrated by Marxist today as a good thing when a sane person would be terrified. The people that were so bold that they even tried to change the calendar because they wanted to disassociate it with the church. Also Napoleon was the most Capitalist of all the European leaders, he believed in individualism vs collectivism. Which is a pro capitalist line of thought. Under Napoleon people were no longer judged by their social class social group, but by their own merits. Something a Liberal Capitalist would say, and yes Capitalism was born from Liberalism, individual rights above the collective community, a man's right to own land/property, pursue happiness by their own decisions/merits, vs the greater state, nobility or king, Capitalism was founded by Liberalism. The only thing Capitalist Imperialistic about the Colonial era was the East India Company as well and they cared more about trading, not conquering. Socialism = State Power, while Capitalism = Individual People Power, the individual of you is more important than the social greater good. Socialism the collective good is above the individual. Who was the one going around conquering land/countries, appointing governors, forming colonial armies, crushing the natives/locals? Which Private Company did this? It was the Public Sector State that was doing it. The State is the social hierarchy of society. Socialism is the Social Hierarchy comes before the individual, so if the state was conquering for the good of the collective then it was Socialist Imperialism. I can point out so many examples during the Colonial era that the State disallowed the operation of the Free Market, disallowed open trade during the Colonial Era, in and outside of their colonies. The colonies in most cases were not examples of Capitalist Imperialism. Which, I doubt those poor african Tribes or rural Indian farmers had money to buy British manufactured goods, and by the State not allowing Free Markets to exist within places like India, they were insanely anti capitalist in nature in how they operated. The point of Capitalist Imperialism is to conquer new markets to sell goods but that was not the case as Colonialism was for land and resources. So not, it wasn't Capitalist Imperialism, but quite the opposite. Capitalism Imperialism is a myth created by socialist, as it's always the other way around. If the state is conquering foreign lands, rather than trading with those foreign lands, it isn't Capitalism. True Capitalist, know that you can always trade for the goods you need, resources you need, not conquer them. It's why you do not see large private armies working for Apple conquering 3rd world nations for cheap labor. They can just spend a bit of money and open up shop freely in that 3rd world nation instead. Free Market, Free Trade in a nutshell. It is only ever when the interest of the state is involved do you get Imperialism, and the state by default is anti capitalism.

No, sorry