Hitler was pro abortion if you change the meaning of all of those words to intentionally mislead people. Theres a word for that that ive heard before but am drawing a complete blank on right now.
@A piece of fucking sliced white bread! Yes each word is technically correct by certain definitions, but in the context of our modern understanding of the terms the sentence as a whole is not. Its like a big game of telephone only instead of the words changing its the meanings. Crowder has changed "pro eugenics plans" to be "pro forced abortion for non-aryans" to then just "pro abortion".
No. A regime that outlawed abortion, set up a "Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion", and even went so far as to make it a capital offense cannot be considered "radically pro-abortion" as Crowder put it.
"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic." - Adolph Hitler
@@abegarfield3754 I think you're mixing up the Hilters here. The one you're referring too is Adolf Hitler, but Lane Funai is referring to his nephew: Adolph!
Oh boy, Steven loses the thread immediately. "I know what you're going to say. NATIONAL Socialism, not DEMOCRATIC Socialism" No, the thing I would say is "Just because you use a word doesn't make you that word, and it was very clearly just a branding effort because of the popularity of socialism at the time as a worker's movement, even though his beliefs and actions were incompatible with socialism in any form."
Steven has also said something to the effect of "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not Democratic or for the people just because it's in the name." And then calls Nazis socialists because it's in their name haha
Exactly. Antifa stands for Anti-Fascist, it is right in the name, yet rightwingers are all freaking out because the Antifa people are the "real fascists." Jeebus these people are such self-serving hypocritical dipwads - if the argument suits them at the time, even if it contradicts some other point they made only a few seconds ago, they will make it.
Wasn't there a civil war in Germany immediately after WW1 involving tons of far left movements and far right freikorps and mercenaries fighting each other? Including the creation of a country that lasted a very brief time called the Bavarian Socialist Republic? The Nazi party rose out of the far right freikorps groups, and adopted the worker-friendly imagery of the far left to court more appeal for the lower class. To say that the far right and left who had just been fighting in the streets a decade earlier literally represent the same party in the NSDAP would seem a bit silly.
Always funny how Rightoid Posterboys like Crowder manage to bend a full 360 degrees in regards to that. If the Nazis were leftist why do so many modern American right-wing Edgelords wave their flag? Why would American right-wingers use their symbols if the Nazis were actually leftist and the American right hates them? It makes no sense at all!
I think he meant the "Political Minority". Most of the time thats what people like him mean. In reality, the "political minority" was still fucked over, just not "officially"
To be honest I can't even tell what kind of minority people are even thinking about. Political minority, group minority, race minority, religious minority and of what ?
You can vote in North Korea, you know! There's just only one candidate and if you do anything else (write-in someone), it's off to Korean gulags with you.
@MB4237 Not just my favorite democracy...but my fave Democratic Republic...just edging out the USA (because according to 'Make me change my concreted mind', democracies are fascist or is it socialist...no communist...oh God my head is spinning!
“The Irish Republican Party are conservatives because they have the word Republican in them. Oh and the Liberal Party in Australia are left wing bc they say “Liberal”.” I am smart American.” -same argument of crowder
The communist parties of China, Cambodia and Russia were communist because they had/have the word 'communist' in them. And because all 3 main leaders, Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin, were devout and committed communists. Well-read, intelligent and democidal Marxist-Leninists.
I find myself skipping the bits of reactionary video and fast-forwarding to the debunking more and more. Probably because the reichwingers sound more and more like Goebbels by the day.
hitler also said that there wasnt much difference between the two. That difference being international marxism focus vs a national nazi focus. Hitler was 110 percent lefty, just not a marxist. He hated capitalism and thought it was created by jews to benefit jews. Read his book if you have to
@Shwazara It literally wpuldn't matter if Hitler did some things you (mistakenly) think are socialism. Because he still commited genocide - the economy has little to do with it.
@Shwazara Not really... Socialism is advocating for the means of production to be put into the hand of the workers. Nazi Germany did nothing like that, absolutely the opposite. Reliable/regime loyal capitalists were rewarded with disowned companies from Jews and other enemies of the Nazi state, if they were not loyal, they ended up disowned themselves and one of the Nazi "Bonzen" got enriched by being made head of the new nationalized property. There is nothing socialist in that policy. They also were violently opposed to Unions and murdered union leaders before they created their own pseudo union to replace them, a Union that no longer represented worker's rights, but enforced loyalty to the State. Still not Socialist.
Durango Savage I seem to have found that pattern out. “Comedians” that are conservative just want to piss off an audience. Huh... that sounds pretty observant.
It shouldn't have been needed at all, noone should need a video like this to realise that the Nazi's wasn't left wing, socialist or liberals. Nor do I really think it's needed, I know people believe really really really crazy things, but I don't for second believe that anyone are truely confused as to wether the Nazi's where right wing or not.
I almost spit out my water when I saw Crowder called Hitler "pro-choice" because of his eugenics programs. It must be because I'm a snowflake who can't handle LOGIC and FACTS
ikr the second i heard him mention pro-choice i knew he was going to go down that road. these conservative guys like to play semantic games with the meanings of words, ignoring context in an attempt to deceive. it's really the beginnings of some scary orwellian shit going on.
@@shanelang3236 You're missing the point. It's irrelevant whether _you_ think inducing a miscarriage of an undeveloped fetus is the same as murder. Fact of the matter is Hitler utilized abortion specifically for social control to enforce his reactionary vision of a genetic hierarchy. He pushed it upon non-Aryans and people with "undesired" hereditary traits & outlawed it for those the Third Reich believed contributed to a "purified" Aryan race. It's just a little funny that Crowder is trying so hard to draw nonexistent comparisons between Hitler's clear-cut right wing authoritarianism and modern liberalization of abortion that he literally calls THAT pro-choice.
Because hitler was undenably rightwing, extreme rightwing. Rightwingers using such an arument against the left is just waiting to be called out. And if it werent so silly and wrong, it could be funny.
@@siemino7444 yeah i'm pretty much moderate, a bit hanging to the left a bit to the right on several issues. I just hang around this guy's videos because I kinda like them as videos
@@siemino7444 Leftists are intellectuals, right-wingers are anti-intellectuals Leftists want to look back on history through different lenses and become unbiased Right-wingers want to keep it as they are not have any doubt on the events of history
Just because the Nazi stood for national socialist party or whatever is irrelevant. North Korea claims to be a democratic republic, that doesn't make it true.
@@jumpjimcrow6959 free healthcare and medicare had both already existed in some form during the german empire. Even today Germans don't consider it "left" because it was implemented by a staunch anti-parlamentarian anti-left royalist, Otto von Bismarck, first german chancellor.
@@phonix6352 Yes, and it is Socialist too (and the german was puzzle to lose the first world war, because Socialism was so good compare to liberal country... Or not)
Kitty Werthmann also claimed that Austria's healthcare system, before Hitler, was privately insured even thought it is widely known(as you state here) that the Habsburg empire introduced public health insurance in 1888. She also claimed that Hitler introduced the "equal rights amendment"(I am not joking) that gave equal rights to women. The truth is that the National Socialists actively discouraged women from pursuing careers, kicking thousands out of the civil service etc. She also claimed that everyone was paid the same....even thought the stats show that income inequality grew under Nazi policies..
Yeah it’s almost as if the US right and its mercenaries use more bad faith than good, and it works too because their core audience has read like 3 books and has microwaved brain syndrome.
In the months after Hitler took power, SA and *Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party* some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany. *However, the assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, right-wing totalitarian power* Yes, the Nazis were indisputably Right-Wing Sometimes the claim is bandied about that the Nazis were a left-wing party on economic questions, perhaps because the Nazis were called “National socialists”. This is flatly and completely wrong and a form of pseudo-historiography. Here’s why: The Nazi party was built on right-wing voters and a right-wing support base: There are many disputes about the nature of Hitler’s voting base. What isn’t under dispute though is that prior to voting Nazi, Nazi voters voted for centre-right and far-right parties, or didn’t vote at all. Support for the Nazis did not come from disaffected left-wing or centre-left voters, but from right-wing voters frustrated with the existing parties of the right. In my view this point alone is decisive. The meaning of right-wing and left-wing is not an ahistorical abstraction, it’s created by the behaviour of people and institutions. The right-wing citizens of Germany implicitly recognised the Nazis as right-wing by voting for them, case closed. Read more about which parties Nazi voters defected from here: gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/nazivp.pdf 2. The Nazis literally invented privatisation: The Nazis were responsible for huge privatisation programs. The extent of their privatisations was enormous, but it was particularly vast when compared with other countries at the time, who were generally moving in the opposite direction. The privatisations of Nazi Germany may indeed have been the first mass privatisations of public property in history and included “Steel, mining, banking, shipyard, ship-lines, and railways.” More on how Nazis bucked historical trends by privatising when no one else was here: www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf 3. Nazi policies greatly increased income inequality: Income inequality spiked under Hitler, as was observed even at the time. More here: piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/Sweezy39.pdf 4. Capital as a share of factor income also spiked under Hitler, at the expense of wages: Factor income describes the division between the factors of production, with land receiving rent, capital receiving profit and labour receiving wages. The capital share, or profit as a proportion of total income, increased by about 50% in Nazi Germany and was much higher than the US’s capital share at the time. See the below graph from Capital in the Twenty-First Century reproduced in a Jacobin article by Corey Robin: I’m sorry if there’s not much in the way of Belles-lettres here. If I am blunt it is for a purpose. The Nazis were right-wing. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong, much in the same way it is wrong to say that the world is flat, six-thousand years old, or made of cheese.
@@Counter-Intuitive you're not exactly right in part 2. Italian fascists privatized insurance companies, telephone services, and trains before nazis but nazis did first used the term "privatization". Also, they did more of it as they were much more advanced than the Italian economy.
ProfessorGrimm and y’all stole an anti communist movements symbol because you wanted diversify your symbolism. The iron front was against monarchism, nazism, and communism.
@@goforbroke4428 Stalinism, which many socialists, like those found in the iron front, opposed. You need to check out how the left responds to tankies malding whenever China does something, or when you bring up the Holodomor.
@@Vraptor1 I’m well aware of the pro Bolshevik crowd sees the Chinese and how they feel on holodomor. I mean the USSR did fight the Chinese along the Ussuri river and in the 30s.
@@Vraptor1 the old iron front seemed more like a moderate anti monarchist/fascist/communist group made up of the more liberal factions of german politics.
@@Vraptor1 the rift between the Bolsheviks and the Maoist’s is based more on which group of workers the respective countries paid heed to. Mao saw the rural peasantry as the group to organize and revolt. While the Bolsheviks saw the urban peasant/urban worker as the group to organize and revolt. The Soviet trained faction of the CCP wanted to follow the Bolshevik concept when Mao knew very well that it wouldn’t work in China. The Soviets and the Chinese have disdain for each mostly because Mao didn’t become a Soviet puppet.
"He was heavily influnced by Marx"... Um yes Ben, he was, he was heavily influenced by it in the opposite way. He literally called it a threat to the level it'd wipe out humanity.
@@metallipwn I mean true, but he tries to make it sound like Hitler was a marxist, when he literally said it was going to bring about human extinction if not stopped. It's was just a bit of a dishonest attempt by Three Arrows to associate. And i'm so sick of the left calling the right Fascist nazis, and the right calling the left fascist nazis. And then even worse people thinking national socialism was the same thing as communism. Best way to explain it, would be, social programs designed to promote the health and prosperity of the nation vs, trying to fuck everything up so every one is so broken down and dependent on the state to maintain power while laughing all the way to the bank the prols now longer get to go to, because money is bad except for the rich people who still have it.
Don't get wrong, I still think long term even national socialism would create problems because of the socialized incentive programs, a had it not get murdered out of existence. And wouldn't really want to see a long term implementation of this system, although can see it's utility in a short term course correction for a country.
TheJadeFist Crowder claimed that Hitler was heavily influenced by Marx, which is true but also distorted here to make it seem as if he was pro-Marx. Since even Steven Crowder is heavily influenced by Marxism without even realizing it (everyone is) that statement in and of itself is meaningless. Holocaust survivors were heavily influenced by the Holocaust, doesn’t mean they like it.
@@juannegrete2348 if he actually does start losing a debate he'll start telling his opponent you're speaking in paragraphs, and not let you finish making your point like he tried doing against Joe rogan and a college kid named yusef.
27:57 How that a joke tho? The republicoons were for the abolition of slavery and the democrats LITERALLY CREATED the KKK. Abe Lincoln was republican homeboy.
@@TheFourthWall14 that's because the old conservatives slave owners who called themselves Democrats switch party and now called themselves Republicans. They are still the same conservatives losers of the civil war. Read a history book and educate yourself.
Just lately? It's been doing my head in for years-some Americans never cease to amaze me in their either willful ignorance or their willingness to say anything to make a dollar. Unfortunately here in the uk has some of the same problems
because he's a U.S. republican - and in his audience's mindset there are two things you can be: a Republican White Supremacist or.... literally anything else - and literally anything else therefore is to be used interchangably with a slur
i don't actually know how true that is! you have to research facts to twist them. sometimes during these debunkings i am very impressed at the density of misinformation, especially PragerU's video on the southern strategy
@@TuhljinTampergauge There were some socialists in the party during the earliest days of the DAP. They were called Strasserites, and believed in socialism for Aryans. When Hitler won the power struggle within the party he had all the Strasserites kicked out, spent many hours reassuring corporate interests he was their ally, and during the Night of Long Knives had their former leader, Otto Strasser, assassinated. Virtually none of the 25 point programme was enacted when the Nazis were in power, and as the video demonstrates they were overwhelmingly right-wing/capitalist. Maybe read a book about the Nazis if you're going to talk about them, so you don't look like an ignorant jackass?
like i always say, you don't need to drink a glass of piss to know that it is piss.... just the smell should be enough information; crowder's rhetoric smells like sewer.
Also a very weird argument for him to make as he produces MOB entertainment. Or has the realization begun to set in, that the rabble is NOT a majority, silent or loud?
@@Angrenost02 What do you think a "mob" is? We're not talking about an Italian mafia. It means the populace. In direct democracy the people hold all the power and majority rules always. It's not that hard to comprehend.
The reason the Nazis made kindergarten and school free to use was not because they were socialists. The reason was that it allowed them to hit two birds with one stone: the parents could continue to work - and they'd have the children from their youngest age to indoctrinate them with Nazi ideology, teach them all the necessary skills and knowledge to contribute to advancement of the Arian race, and pick the best candidates for the next generation of Nazi leadership.
Indoctrinate? Are you saying that because they're "Nazis"? Lots of people drop off their kids on daycare in USA, does that mean the daycare indoctrinates them into left wing ideology?
@@getschwiftysuperschwifty3282 no I know we have public schools, but daycare for babies and toddlers are a different private business, even if school can act like daycare.
@@omega0195 The mere presence of public schools does not automatically make them tools for indoctrination. Whether the US system specifically is an indoctrination tool or not is up for discussion, but that comes from how the system is used, not the mere fact that the system exists. An education system is a hammer, it can be used to build or destroy, and *anyone* can use it for either purpose. If all schools were privatized, that would not prevent the owners from instilling their own agenda into the students.
These people just parrot leftists talking points then facts and reality hit them they still brainwash them selves. That is the height of stupidity. these people think hitler was for limited government and capitalism LOL!
*”Socialism is the science of dealing with the weal. Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take socialism away from the socialists.* *Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Or German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.”* -ADOLF HITLER *Hitlers Zweites Buch* - Author, ADOLF HITLER. *Page 50. “I am a socialist.”*
@@legitimatelypissedoff4409 You’re just as bad as the people who cite newspaper articles saying “if the South secedes, it won’t be because of slavery.” Like, the whole reason the article exists is because everybody knew the truth, and someone wrote an article in opposition to what everyone knew (Southern papers claiming the South’s “peculiar institution” wasn’t the real issue, Hitler proclaiming himself a socialist after denouncing Gregor Strasser, himself not really a socialist, for having “too extreme” socialist ideas) And your quote undermines itself, because it explicitly aligns itself in opposition to Communism and Marxism, boogiemen to the right and the whole reason “Socialism” is a dirty word in the first place. Hitler was more than happy to enrich capitalists, dismantle unions (and send their leaders to concentration camps), and outright murder anybody remotely left wing, including (extremely moderate) Social Democrats. The idea that Hitler himself was a socialist is farcical, hence him having to reach for nonsense like “Socialism is an ancient Aryan Germanic institution.” In short, you’re a clown and you should feel embarrassed (but I know you won’t, don’t worry). Also, you missed the entire point of my comment, which was the fact that calling someone a “Socialist Liberal” is total nonsense, comedically so.
Germany was mostly ruled by a conservative party after WWII, and still "Rechts" (right wing) is a bad word in Germany. When some one is called right wing in Germany, they literally call him a Nazi. You people in the US don't understand that right wing doesn't mean "small government".
THANK YOU i swear to god, even highly educated people seem to fail to understand this. the different between right and left isn’t small gov vs. big gov, it’s hierarchy vs. no hierarchy.
@@quanicle101 hierarchy is more based in capitalism and the right-wing embrace of capitalism. There is no racial component to capitalist hierarchy. All the major capitalist philosophers were in support of both hierarchy, freedom and abolition.
@@quanicle101 It's way more complex than that. Right wing is mir about rage or nationalist interests. Left wings are/were more about class and social justice for the working class. Saying they are opposed on the spectrum would be wrong, they can even be combined. I mean, the social party in Denmark is shame immigration, but for social care. ... Sorry
"Okay Steven, here's two unlabeled cups of which you must drink one: one with water and one with hyrdogen peroxide. They're both just hydrogen and oxygen, so there's no difference, right?"
@@hepwo91222 >Marxists >WWII Germany lol Meanwhile, I'm in two different fb arguments with real deal white nationalists I encountered in the wild. Or bigfoots, as you call them.
@@awol.oper8r not sure one could fill a stadium with white supremacists in America in 2020, but we could fill cities with American hating indentitarian communists.
While he wanted a collective economy, his ideal society was one in which did not require a leader or centralized government, as the government would have been the community. If everyone acts upon their purpose to the society there would have been no need for a leader.
Communism, in its foundation, is a very anarchic principal. Well, actually the main end goal is very similar to anarchists, which is a stateless society. While anarchists (the level about Libertarians) want to disable the boundaries immediately, Marxist Communist is a gradual transition into a stateless society.
@@americantoastman7296 same. Though I am German myself I don't have strong connections to our culture but GOD I want to slap that man with a Weißwurst so badly
I think Steven was talking about economic policies if you actually watched the show the clip is from. Remember Bernie talking about bread lines being a good thing. The last time the US had breadlines was the great depression which lasted from 1929 to 1940
he is saying their beliefs and ideology is the same which it is. its hilarious to this day the left still tries to make out hitler was a capitalist its fucking braindead beyond.
In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany. However, the assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, right-wing totalitarian power. Yes, the Nazis were indisputably Right-Wing Sometimes the claim is bandied about that the Nazis were a left-wing party on economic questions, perhaps because the Nazis were called “National socialists”. This is flatly and completely wrong and a form of pseudo-historiography. Here’s why: The Nazi party was built on right-wing voters and a right-wing support base: There are many disputes about the nature of Hitler’s voting base. What isn’t under dispute though is that prior to voting Nazi, Nazi voters voted for centre-right and far-right parties, or didn’t vote at all. Support for the Nazis did not come from disaffected left-wing or centre-left voters, but from right-wing voters frustrated with the existing parties of the right. In my view this point alone is decisive. The meaning of right-wing and left-wing is not an ahistorical abstraction, it’s created by the behaviour of people and institutions. The right-wing citizens of Germany implicitly recognised the Nazis as right-wing by voting for them, case closed. Read more about which parties Nazi voters defected from here: gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/nazivp.pdf 2. The Nazis literally invented privatisation: The Nazis were responsible for huge privatisation programs. The extent of their privatisations was enormous, but it was particularly vast when compared with other countries at the time, who were generally moving in the opposite direction. The privatisations of Nazi Germany may indeed have been the first mass privatisations of public property in history and included “Steel, mining, banking, shipyard, ship-lines, and railways.” More on how Nazis bucked historical trends by privatising when no one else was here: www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf 3. Nazi policies greatly increased income inequality: Income inequality spiked under Hitler, as was observed even at the time. More here: piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/Sweezy39.pdf 4. Capital as a share of factor income also spiked under Hitler, at the expense of wages: Factor income describes the division between the factors of production, with land receiving rent, capital receiving profit and labour receiving wages. The capital share, or profit as a proportion of total income, increased by about 50% in Nazi Germany and was much higher than the US’s capital share at the time. See the below graph from Capital in the Twenty-First Century reproduced in a Jacobin article by Corey Robin: I’m sorry if there’s not much in the way of Belles-lettres here. If I am blunt it is for a purpose. The Nazis were right-wing. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong, much in the same way it is wrong to say that the world is flat, six-thousand years old, or made of cheese.
Embarassed for 3 Arrows, they want to be right, but sadly the Nazis were socialists that leaned heavier on socialism/communism with remnants of capitalism in a mixed economy. By any modern metric they were left wing secular authoritarians.
@Gabriel Victor actual history. Never heard of Volkswagen? "Peoples' Car" ? Nazi Party invented it and it was part of the auto/manufacturing/defense industry. Nazi Party was mixed economy but leaned heavier towards socialism/communism as the name does spell out, but still had capitalism, probably would have less capitalism if the Nazi party lasted longer in Germany.
@@Eastcyning socialism/communism by nature is fascistic. Also, yes, as long as this video is, its still disingenous, the Nazis were part of a mixed economy but leaned heavier on socialism/communism than capitalism. We will never know for sure, but if they lasted longer the capitalism elements probably would have reduced or possibly eliminated entirely.
Wow that’s hilarious! Dave Rubin pisses me off though. He’s a complete & utter traitor to the LGBT+ community & eventually he’s going to learn that there are no “good ones” in the eyes of fascists
2:01 "That's because 'democracy' is mob rule." ...said Benito Mussolini. Seriously. Denouncing popular democracy as "mob rule" was one of the primary arguments put forth in the Doctrine of Fascism. This is a fascist talking point and if you ever hear anyone using it you should point this fact out to them.
have you ever read the founding fathers, or the federalist papers? have you ever read any enlightement philosopher? have you ever heard about any socialist country of the last 100 years? have you ever heard donald trump? or lenin? many people believe democracy is the rule of the mob
*”Socialism is the science of dealing with the weal. Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take socialism away from the socialists.* *Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Or German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.”* -ADOLF HITLER *Hitlers Zweites Buch* - Author, ADOLF HITLER. *Page 50. “I am a socialist.”*
@@legitimatelypissedoff4409 Not only is that an unreleased manuscript, but also, as the Video here points out, is it completely irrelevant. The Nazis werent socialists, even if they called themselves that, nor is the democratic peoples republic of north korea democratic.
To sum it up in a few sentences: The Nazis added the word "socialist" to their party's name - against Hitler's objections - to appeal to the left leaning working class in order to draw them away from Communism and toward volkish nationalism. The Nazi version of socialism relied on redefining German society from the notion of "Reichsdeutsche" (citizens of the German Empire) to that of "Volksdeutsche" (Germans with regard to ethnicity or race, rather than citizenship). Drexler specified that the socialist platform was only meant to give social welfare to German citizens deemed part of the Aryan race. So no, Hitler and the NSDAP were NOT socialist in any sense it was or is used otherwise. It was no more socialist than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
@Rasmus Vohlakari Hitler was already a member when the word Socialist was added to its name. Socialism is based on civic or left-wing nationalism - inclusive forms that apply to all citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. - and is therefore easily distinguished from the right-wing ethnic nationalist ideology of the NSDAP.
PauliBhoy is correct, there was no socialism in Nazi Germany. Socialism first and foremost is a system where the workers own the means of production and they themselves manage the enterprises. That has never happened under the Nazis, Hitler detested that with a passion. There was wide support for social policies, sure, but better access to healthcare, higher pensions, etc. is not socialism. Hitler toned down the anti-socialist / anti-communist rhetoric for a while when he courted the USSR so they could divide Europe between them easily. That was not an ideological pact tho, it was a pact between two countries that both felt screwed over by the rest. And even when the state took control of the whole economy in order to throw everything into the total war, they didn't do it because of socialism, they just had to. And the workers saw nothing from it.
Whoa so they did a bunch of socialist policies. They screamed about socializing the people into a volsgezmein but because they weren't your type of socialist they had no influence from socialism? Right. You even said the Nazi version of socialism then claim it wasn't socialism at all. Ok you are the real socialist and these were heretic socialists. Got it.
you really need to understand language. socialist means socialist, saying another strain of socialism is not socialism is incredibly stupid just like the failed oxymoron argument. they ultimately believe in the same things... "all power to the state" and regulated economies, anti capitalism. amongst others like planned parenthood.
@@createspaceone But Nazism is not a "strain" of Socialism in any way, shape or form. They literally adopted the name for publicity. Socialists do not believe in "all power to the state", all economies are regulated in one way or another (even the most capitalist countries), Nazis believed in capitalism and private property, and planned parenthood is an organization born in the USA, not a policy.
@@createspaceone Well, yeah, arguing over definitions is for transphobes, but if you look at any socialist thinkers and philosophies non of it fits with nazi ideology except for the vague “government does stuff”. If that’s your definition of socialism that basically every government in history is socialist.
@Matthew Stewart i was commenting the syllogism fallacy i see here and also as a additon to it showed the comments lacking definition of system and weird conclusion of system here as reductive and downright. presumptious. beacuse it assumes without proving that education becomes left leaning beacuse of its system, rather then by acknowledging the possibility that people aquiring alot of knowledge becomes left leaning due to their knowledge or by the mentality that comes becuse of aquiring alot of knowledge. (or by studying alot, whatever term you wanna use for the activites concerning those considerd educated) socialist to set up a system? every political ideologi is the idea of setting up a system of the distribution of power. even if education was so anarchistic to say "read whatever" that in its self is a system of education. you even use "mentorship system" a SYSTEM. also, alexander the great? taught under aristoteles, who himself was taught under platos school, or "academy" and aristoteles open a school himself beacuse of the recommendation of alexander. so your great general also liked systems, his mentor taught under a system. system isnt bad or political, it is just a descriptive word, not a euphemism for socialist or do you say you think alexander the great was a socialist? and before you say "i said systemic instruction not systems" setting up a system is instructing on how something should work so "systemic instruction" is just redundant use of words or in this case framing it as pedantic, "too controling", as "socialism" since you are suggesting i am reasoning here why that suggestion does not work. or why considering "systems" belongs to a specific party shows more personal opinion of said word rather than it being politcal partisan. althought systems can be biased but that is then the construction of said system to be so rather than the existance of a system. so what you should argue is that the educational system of whatever country you are using as template is socialistic, not that a system exist therefore it is socialistic. edit: if you mean system in its more socialily used meaning rarther than the definitial use of the word, remember internet around the globe. the social use of a word is more situational and therefore easily to misinteprate. especially where there isnt a defined group. specify it if so.
@Matthew Stewart so you dont respect me, and calls me a conformist when you cant read the comment pointing out your lack of nuance. i was trying to point out how limiting your comparison was and that you should consider other possibilties, they were not suggestions to a point. but if this is the road you wanna go down, then tread it alone, i do not join insult wars. they bring nothing to fruition i care for.
Well this is why I dont believe anyone talking politics on the internet. If anything I dont like these response videos. Nothing to learn from them because you already knew Crowder is wrong.
@MajorLeague What are you on about? I'm just pointing out that those who need to claim that they are wise are the most foolish Wisdom lies in understanding how little you know
"Saying Hitler was a liberal socialist is already a hot take because it's an oxymoron..." Love the little comments like these you sometimes say, always find them funny
*”Socialism is the science of dealing with the weal. Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take socialism away from the socialists.* *Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Or German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.”* -ADOLF HITLER *Hitlers Zweites Buch* - Author, ADOLF HITLER. *Page 50. “I am a socialist.”*
D'souza's "Death of a Nation," a "documentary" whose title references a silent film in which the KKK rides in to save the day from the evil of black rights... My dog is barking ravenously right now.
Extreme ideologues of all stripes like their easy answers. Learning slowly teaches you that easy answers don't exist. That is as great a threat to the ideologue as their strawmen and scapegoats... therefore it must be one of the conspiratorial tools to harm the one true ideology.
"Some ideas are so stupid only an intelectual could believe them" is a quote that idiots use to justify why experts in a field think they're fucking morons
I'd like to tell all the righturds that think nazism is leftist ideology, to approach a neonazi gang and call them communists. I'll make sure to send your families my respects.
It's to the point that they cannot tell an elephant from a mouse. We are authoritative in nature but that does not make us the same. It's almost like a war was started over the difference in ideology but I cant put my finger on it
@@thevisitor135 we would argue against fascism being corporatism in its purest on paper form but in practice yeah Italy and nazi Germany made quite a few people rich
@@johnsinclair6170 Yeah, that's basically corporatism, which is a third-positionist alternative to socialism and free-market capitalism and has been utilized by regimes ranging from Juan Perón in Argentina and Benito Mussolini in Italy to Francisco Franco Bahamonde in Spain and even Franklin Delano Roosevelt during his New Deal in America.
Thank you for this video. Every time I see someone arguing that Hitler was a socialist I can feel my braincells commiting suicide. It just hurts so much...
*”Socialism is the science of dealing with the weal. Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take socialism away from the socialists.* *Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Or German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.”* -ADOLF HITLER *Hitlers Zweites Buch* - Author, ADOLF HITLER. *Page 50. “I am a socialist.”*
Hitler told Otto Wagener: ‘What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.’ He told Hermann Rauschning: ‘I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit.’ He added: “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it.’Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’ ‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. ‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. ‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…
The more I listen to other viewpoints, the more I want to step away from the echo chamber of conservative viewpoints I put myself in. I appreitiate your work.
@MajorLeague Plz explain or cite some sources with these claims.... This guy went out his way to explain and pull sources and you denounce it as fallacy (which type?) and propaganda and then push your own propaganda... Perfect
@MajorLeague You know you are reading a BS comment when he doesn't even try to read what he links (or understand the video, idk): " I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists." He is inventing his own definition of socialism, something this video addresses already. Congratulations, you have proved yourself to be near Crowder level logic: "It's in the name, duh"
@MajorLeague "Socialism is defined as the collective control of the means of production and ownership of property." Yeah, probably most forms of socialism. So? "You characterize Hitler's statement as a redefinition, which it is not." You can't just start calling yourself an atheist and keep going to church. "It is a speciation of national socialism from marxism." It has nothing to do with marxism. It does not follow its objectives, it does not use its methods, it only appropriates some of its _rhetoric_. In other words, it uses some words. "If your analysis is not full of shit," Not even an analysis, I just pointed out your laziness and incoherence. "maybe you can point out how socialism is necessarily internationalist" Are you confusing communism with socialism? Communism, the stateless society, is international both by definition, because no state implies no borders, and because of necessity, to survive. Socialism doesn't really imply internationalism in all definitions. "or what else disqualifies naziism from socialism based on this quote or otherwise. " Literally? On a video that already answers this same point? And of which you didn't care to raise a single counter argument? Why don't _you_ start justifying your point, seeing as that would save everybody a lot of time and wasted effort? "This video is wholly inept" This video produced a lot of arguments, while you are just trying to convince people to take Hitler's word... "and does not address the body of works attributable to Hitler on this topic, including that which I have provided." You are just taking his word at face value. He says he's socialist so he must be one. That's all you're doing. If that's your way of dealing with this kind of complex issues, I don't expect you'll do too well. I really encourage you to try and read beyond what people just tell you, specially in the case of "controversial" figures like, you know, Adolf Hitler? " why it is clearly propaganda functioning to make a case rather than present objective information." You think this is propaganda. Let me guess, you'd rather believe Crowder? Because he's not propaganda, not like this commie. He does present all the objective information, because God is watching him, so he can't lie. Come on man, watch the video again, it's full of big words, it's long, it doesn't have any anime girls, but put the effort, watch it as many times as necessary. Then tell me the parts that seem wrong to you, maybe we can work it out together. Time stamps appreciated.
@MajorLeague "The video is a designed piece of misinformation." Still waiting for you to justify that. You keep repeating stuff as if that would make it true. "I don't indulge in getting my info from videos like you do, so I have no preference for crowder or any sources other than..." Lol, yeah, if I indulged you into citing my formation, you'd also dismiss me with ad hominems, so not giving you that. "... the first source material I present." You are just quoting Hitler. That's it. You are not analyzing what does it even mean what he says. You just go by the book, you are plain and simply put, just basic and literal. You think of it as a virtue, too bad for you. "The purpose of raising the definition of socialism is to show that you are full of shit when you claim that what you quoted is a redefinition. You can't provide any evidence to support your insults to me and your inane case that naziism isn't socialism." Blah blah blah. "The criticism you quoted of Hitler's was specifically of marxism, but you wouldn't know that since you are being exposed to it for the first time." Assuming a little? Is this a debate about me or the video? Are you going to keep running in circles? "You're a sophmoric ignoramus, so you have to come out incorrectly by brand." Ok, to the point please... "You have avoided pointing out how Hitler's redefined socialism in any fundamental way based on the definition we agree on." It's self evident. He disregards completely every of the founders of socialism, including Marx, and uses the name for something completely different. From that point on, you just have two choices: A- you only take seriously all the other definitions, and use a different name for nazism B- you accept his use of the word against any logic, and debilitate the meaning of the word, to the point that anything, even Hitler's ideas can be socialist. "You can't. Hitler's rhetoric was not empty," Look dude, your daddy Adolf had strong competition in the market of ideas, so he branded himself to sound catchy. You know, to appeal to literal, linear unidimensional minded people like you. "unless you're one of the holocaust denial fucks in addition to denying this truth about socialism." Oh shit, you found out the plot, I can't hide it anymore. We are the socialist nazis, we are both controlled by the jews and also trying to kill them, and it's all in an attempt to exterminate the white christian race. "Being authoritarian made it so there was no need to stir political support with empty rhetoric nor any due process obstacles to face in rolling out their agenda... Their explicitly and objectively socialist agenda." What the fuck dude? Their socialist agenda? What would that agenda be? Is it the same agenda about gay rights that Kermit Peterson talks about? Is the agenda of selling children to catholic pedophiles? You lost me. You sound deluded and ignorant. And YOU KEEP AVOIDING THE CENTRAL ISSUE: __what part of the video you disagree with__?! Fuck, man, you are really something
If “one of his best” is a video that is INCORRECT on almost everything he said then that is pretty pathetic. This video is wrong and you are too dumb to recognize it.
I try not to make sweeping generalizations, but: if a person likes Crowder... I am forced to assume they are not a serious person, and are easily swayed by bluster. Doubly so, if they like Shapiro, too.
Watching Ben Shapiro make that statement about the Marxism in Mein Kampf made me want to throw a copy of it at his face while shouting “Can you read?!?!?” Obvious intentional misrepresentation.
I think you can scratch the wannabe part, that would be an acurate representation of who he is, plus he's a moron so maybe you can work that in his title somehow ; )
I read mein Kampf at 10 and you're going to have to torture the 10 year old me to force me to believe that it has a Marxist agenda😂🤣 it's right wing authoritarian agenda. Nothing else. Though the bit about Hitler's childhood is a good read though.
Short answer: No. Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Well... Hitler was proponent of big government and was essentially a collectivist and statist and so are socialists. I don't see much difference - fundamentally. But maybe someone here will enlighten me.
@@kruczyzmora2885 Thank you for being open minded about this. Now, authoritarian governments are not an inherently socialist thing, despite what many americans believe. Socialism just requires collective ownership of industry, meaning everybody in a workplace is considered an owner of that workplace, unlike in capitalism where workplaces are owned and controlled by only a few bosses or shareholders. This doesn't require a strong state necessarily. There are in fact many socialists that identify as libertarians or anarchists, or who want a free market to distribute goods instead of a central govt body. Some famous anti-authoritarian socialists include Noam Chomsky, Peter Kroptkin, Rosa Luxembourg and Nestor Makhno. I wanted to clear this up. Being pro-authority doesn't mean you're pro-socialism, and vice versa. If that were the case, chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet would be a socialist, and he was an outspoken anti-communist who shaped his countries after neoliberal super-capitalist principles. Hitler also had a lot of negative things to say about the economics of the left in his book "Mein Kampf". Chapter 2 was literally about how marxism, the economic framework that birthed socialism, is a jewish plot to destroy the world and ignores fundamental parts of humanity. In the same chapter he talked about how social democrats are manipulative crooks with an ideology not grounded in reality. And as this video explained, the nazis did have a bunch of socialists in their party before they came to power, but they were purged in the "night of the long knifes". The nazis were opposed to socialism AND the free market, since they thought both were a threat to their nationalist culture, so what they settled on was an authoritarian state capitalist/corporatist economy. The other vids by this youtuber explained that a bit further. The nazis were not socialist just because they were authoritarians, or because they had "socialist" in their name. That was merely a misnomer. I think it's very good people like you are willing to learn. Thank you for listening. 👍🏼
@@frocco7125 It was kind of you to answer this person but sadly it looks like he/she was not really into a long and lenghty argument. Do know that I liked your response. You got a (red) star for kindness
Gotta say, as a brazillian, I'm very happy to see Three Arrows often using the Brazillian Military Dicatorship as an example of right-wing dictatorship. The world (many brazillians included) seem to forget the awful dictatorships enacted in Latin America during the Cold War.
Saying that nazis are the same as communists because they seized and redistributed property is like saying that murderers are the same as chef's because they use knives
@@Statalyzer I mean, you're not wrong; not all murderers use knives. The overall point stands, though. Nazi 'seizing and redistribution" of property was quite different from what Marx proposed. For starters, until Germany entered full war economy, basically of property seizing was from undesirables: Jews, Communists, Slavs, dissidents. The average German businessmen were allowed to keep their companies, as long as they didn't explicitly oppose the NSDAP. Compare that to the actual seizing of the means of production proposed by Marx and implemented by the likes of Lenin, Stalin and Mao in their own dictatorships, and there is a very noticeable difference.
@MajorLeague Did you even watch the video? Nazis were emphatically NOT socialist I'll save you some time on the reach, the people did not have collective ownership of the means of production under the nazis so the nazis could not have possibly been a socialist party no matter what they called themselves Some people were even removed from the party for being too socailist
I've found the idea of democracy and republic not being mutually exclusive (and not even concerning the same matter) to be absolutely baffling to several American friends. They will argue until they're blue in the face that America is a republic and therefore cannot be a democracy, no matter how many times or how patiently I try and point out the obvious. Maybe something to do with what they're taught in school? I dunno. It seems to be an almost sacred mantra to some. I have to say I don't think people are going to stop repeating the "BUT SOCIALIST IS IN THE NAME" gotcha anytime soon, but the dive into the history of factionalism and ideological conflict within the NSDAP is really intriguing as we hear pretty much nothing about that outside of Germany, let alone outside of Europe.
the 'usa are a republic, not a democracy' is a super weird talking point, for two reasons: 1) it uses republic in a way nobody except people arguing this point are, and 2) by this defintion there are no democracies in the world, only republics. so in the end, it is a meaningless statement because it differentiates between two things of which only one exists and is grossly misleading for 80% of the world. (also i suspect this is pro-american propaganda teached in schools: look how good the usa are with our freedom unlike those pesky europeans hahaha )
Well technically most countries are constitutional democratic republics. There aren’t actually any true democracies in the world, because there’s no country in which a vote for every issue is made.
I've had people argue that North Korea is truly a people's democratic republic... just so that they could fall back on "It's in the name!!!1!" arguments when it comes to Nazis. I repeat, they defended the idea that North Korea is democratic, that it's a republic, and that it's governed by its people, because to do otherwise would undermine their only argument for claiming that Nazis are left wing. Meanwhile Nazis marched in the US under the title "Unite The Right"... but what do I know?
republics aren't democracies tho', that's like the one thing crowder gets right but then he wants to make the point that the majority would always overule the minority in that situation, which is like, no. Nooo.
I'd say It's a combination of both but leaning towards malice because their aim is to spread misinformation in order to keep the Republican base ignorant to the truth.
They're partisan hacks who act in incredibly intellectually dishonest ways because the real point is to help their side win. I mean, Shapiro even hates the Beatles because…communism or something.
@@disgusted3191there is a huge difference between something extremely minor & inconsequential like someone’s vocabulary (which isn’t a problem in this person’s comment at all) & the way right wingers embrace anti-intellectualism like their second religion. The latter is actually harmful to society & comes from an abysmal stupidity inherent in right wing politics
@@theoneandonlymichaelmccormickCroward is really dumb and ignorant as he looks. He was watching croward try is hand at comedy he has very dry sense of humor just like ever right wing comedian.
@MajorLeague You are not just wrong. You are wrong at every conceivable level of resolution. And zooming in on any part of your worldview reveals beliefs exactly as wrong as your entire worldview.
in general the politics in america are fucked; both sides are spewing bs to get points they over exaggerate points to the point where no one can be even trusted at the end politics is just rich people lying to us
@Pp fopaexcept that they're not you moron, an annoying screamy kid is the stereotypical left winger not the right winger, you moron , like you , you repeated the same thing without adding anything new , just like a child. And also , collecting my internet points ?
For the record, the USA is a democracy. And a republic. The terms "democracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive. Most western countries are democratic republics. The only exceptions are those that are constitutional monarchies. I think this need of the right-wing to demonize the term democracy is because "majority rule" is not compatible with "rule by the 1%" (through money in politics and campaign donations).
Well, to be fair, when's the last time the majority actually had their way in America?
6 ปีที่แล้ว +10
The republic vs democracy is an old lump of stupid US derp which I think was started by the NRA years ago. Every now and again some dumb fuck right wing slimeball repeats it.
*a representative "democracy" which isn't real democracy* Why not? A democracy is a rule "by the people". In theory, a typical modern representative republic is governed by the people in that they have (limited and well defined) control over the people in power. How is it not "real"? You might just as well say a constitutional monarchy isn't a "real" monarchy.
Hitlers German controlled the means of production. There were no real private businesses, only in name. They could not set a sales price, they could not choose what is paid in dividends, they were told how much to produce and how to redistribute etc.. Big Gov does those sorts of things. The entire Left is unfortunately uneducated in real history mostly perhaps because Hippies became professors to spread their ideology in College and it carried on from there. Sorry, no way around it, Hitlers Germany controlled the means of production, therefore, they were SOCIALISTS - NOTHING can get around that FACT.
@@WingThaiJ Wrong. There was private business. In the USA the state also heavily controlled industry, its war time... Does that make the USA a Socialist state?
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 No your wrong, they were private in name only. How the hell don't you know that. They couldn't set prices, they couldn't set pay, the were told what they could and could not do, they distributed in accord with the Gov, they did nothing of their own accord. In the end the Gov itself called all the shots and the owners were relegated to Gov pensions. You're looking at revisionist history Sorry YOU are wrong
When the video started with a sigh i started laughing, like the fact that you even need to make a video like this is ridiculous because these people exist Great channel btw
The historical definition of Socialism is "Seizing the means of production" And thats exactly what the Nazis did, idk why ya all try to say "no their not Socialist!!!!". The Nazis didnt privitised the german economy, the Nazis nationalised the trade unions into 1 trade union, the DAF (Deutsche Arbeiter Front, German Workers Front), the same thing Lenin did in Russia....
His voice is pretty grating. I'm one to talk because I have two lisps (th instead of s sounds and w instead of r sounds) and a stutter and a wheezy voice crack and a mumble all at once, but at least that makes me think about what I say.
Right wing youtube: The left calls everyone nazis Right wing youtube: The left are nazis Right wing youtube: Today I'm bringing on my good friend of mine, he's got some good ideas that I want to share, he's an ethnonationalist and a good christian race realist, a real truer he is.
I can translate a small part if you want 33:53 "sim, Hitler foi definitivamente influenciado por Marx" Stop this bullshit of always accusing the other side and NEVER look to your own side! There is no such a thing as "educate" if you only tell what's convenient
"state control of institutions and authoritarianism" First, where do you think those institutions come from? The State has always controlled them, the State is made of those institutions. Democratic Socialism just gives the public means of production FOR those institutions through democratic vote. Don't lump authoritarianism in there just because history shows us that socialistic societies can produce fascism. Capitalism does this also! However, the way the Left has operated in the current system is on occasion equally if not more deplorable than behavior of the right particularly in US politics (Not sure about Brazil). But the idea of "brainwashing combined with weak minds" producing socialism is arrogant and reductive and equally ignorant of the history of BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
Well this will be a difficult conversation to have considering we have completely different definitions of certain concepts. I'll start here as it seems to be a big point of discourse: Hate speech is real. Revoking the platform of someone with antiquated and violent ideology, while it is globalist and leftist, is not violent intrinsically, as is the hate speech itself. But I'll give it to you, the examples you cited are violent on the part of the UK and Germany, and that is something those sovereign nations must tackle, though i really don't blame them for making such decisions, especially considering Germany's past. England will probably end up using their surveillance system to get rid of all the people of colour anyway, who are we kidding? But private entities such as Google, Facebook, Twitter can act as they wish, they don't set a precedent for other businesses. The government didn't mandate that decision, those corporations did. Besides, there are plenty of conservative platforms that block and curate liberal speech to their own agenda. Is that fascist behavior? To me that's people pursuing capitalist gain by appealing to the confirmation bias that most people have regarding their political beliefs. As for private corporations becoming federalized, it doesn't seem that private enterprise or free market must be sacrificed in order to make certain voted-for institutions socialized. It doesn't have to be all in, where ALL private enterprise is socialized. And the state should be wary of dangerous ideological organizations, but that's not to say that anyone who is a Nazi sympathizer should be legally punished for holding such beliefs, regardless of the fact I personally believe they should. As for Socialism itself, saying that it will fail on ideology alone is pure speculation on your part, and while you do have history on your side, it's impossible to prove that socialist policy as an exclusive abstract concept is a direct cause for fascism. Capitalism has facilitated violent fascists as well my friend, regardless of what they call themselves. Look at the civil war that the US is funding and perpetuating in Yemen by proxy of funding Saudi Arabia, all due to nuanced trade policy regarding arms and oil and a capitalist agenda that puts product and monetary value over human life. And to be honest, No, people can't control themselves. I don't trust you to do the right thing no more than you trust me to do the right thing. Regardless, we all have a base set of needs (food, clothing, shelter) that can be met through social organization of federal funds and institutions, and denying those things to everyone just because you can "do it yourself" is selfish to those who cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps due to a vast array of reasons. And just because people have used similar Socialist institutions to assume authoritarian regimes doesn't mean that the ideas themselves were flawed. We can have it both ways! We can keep microbreweries and fucking McDonalds and still give people healthcare and a good education! You're making it an all or nothing thing, and that is the ESSENTIAL difference between Absolute Socialism and Democratic Socialism. Most all historical socialist turned into fascism because the public wasn't involved aside from throwing full political support TO a fascist, or there was heavy conspiratorial prejudice on the part of the States that implemented such policies. And holding those beliefs doesn't make me a sheep that's sucking on the teat of big government, and it doesn't make me a fascist sympathizer just because fascists have used socialism to gain authoritarianism. It makes me someone who sees that there is already an incredible gap between how much wealth is accumulated by society and the people who are actually benefiting from that wealth. I can see the potential in the system that exists because it does have good bones, but people have to organize and take control of it. It has always been for the purpose of serving those who hold the power, and it always will until the bridge is built between government spending and the people it is being spent on. Democratically elected social spending could be a way to bridge that gap! Also unions working with those institutions to forge policy that benefits those groups idk just throwing things out there
Hitler was never a socialist. Most people invariably think of Marxist socialism when they think of "socialism" because that's all they know. But Hitler was famous for using terms with a completely different meaning, and the reason was exactly to make it confusing. And one last thing, in the beginning of this you state that the greatest minds of today are working on this question of whether Hitler was a socialist or not. That is also completely false. The greatest minds of today are not working on this question because they already know the answer. There is absolutely nothing to work on with this question. In history it is crystal clear. It always has been clear. Hitler was never a socialist, never a Marxist, never a leftist. Hitler was always a conservative, Volkisch, extreme right-wing activist.
Being a volkisch was not being a part of socialism? What do you think socialism is? Just because you don't like his brand of socialism doesn't mean he wasn't one. I don't like Pinochet's brand of capitalism with an authoritarian government, I don't say he didn't support a capitalist system though. Ironically, it was capitalism that gave the people the power to get rid of his Junta. The bottom up approach will eventually erode and destroy the top down authoritarianism.
@@johnweatherby8718. No, being folkish is not Marxist socialism. Hitler created his own, non-Marxist, form of socialism that he called "Front Socialism" and that he later elaborated on as being folkish or as Hitler explained it, everything about National Socialism is about race or the Volk, or in other words, Social Darwinist.
@@originalmaxie8678 1. Depends on what kind and branch of socialism your talking about since their are many forms of socialism that differ from each other; it isn't a homogeneous monolith. 2. Historical fact has an innate left wing bias 3. Gender is in fact a spectrum because gender refers to the sociological, behavioral and cultural characteristics associated with but distinct from each biological sex.Gender, typically described in terms of masculinity and femininity, is a social construction that varies across different cultures and over time. There are a number of cultures, for example, in which greater gender diversity exists and sex and gender are not always neatly divided along binary lines such as male and female or homosexual and heterosexual. 4. For Science: please refer back to counter point #2. 5. Political left wing philosophy seems to be flatly, both in it's face and in practice: to be much better and beneficial to the betterment of mankind. Right wing philosophy only perpetuates the cycles of hatred, violence and pain of humanity.
@@brano13177 The left wing philosophy is to make big promises that better everyone in the world except the u.s, fuck the u.s hard, and then blame the right for why we are in debt while we funnel money to fund non u.s citizens to live here. Guess what in a number of cultures they also killed the people who had those mental disabilities of fucking the same gender. notice i say gender because it is not a spectrum. there are only disabilities, male and female.
Well, the problem is that the more volumes you read, the lesser is your certainty in your opinion. Usually people who are really well educated avoid from discussions on subjects, which they don't know well enough. And as the "right" and "left" belief systems usually contain a lot of unrelated and unprovable ideas, only an extremely biased person can use selected according to ideological preferences historical examples to prove anything related to future based on simple analogies.
@@Lycaon1765 Its a deliberate attempt of bad revisionism - they want to at least muddy the waters enough for the their alt-right, xnenophobic and racist agenda to appear more acceptable.
Free speech. You can't begin trying to dictate what misinformation is, otherwise you will risk stepping onto people's rights. Your ability to say whatever you want is great, as is Steven's. Start trying to control it and you really will become a fascist. Or a Stalinist if you like.
Black Sun Rising Because the left is wrong and they know it. They don’t care, they just want what they want even if they have to be dishonest to get it.
Is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (a.k.a. North Korea) democratic? Is the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" democratic? Just because people use a certain label for themselves or others does not make it true.
"or we, the poor have abolished unemployment because we no longer pay homage to this madness, because we regard our entire economic existence as a production problem and no longer as a capitalistic problem...." "It is today no longer possible to build up a state on a capitalistic basis." "Germany's economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people. I am not the slave of a few international banking syndicates. I am under no obligation to any capitalist group. I sprang from the German people. My Movement, our Movement, is a German people's Movement" www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adolf-hitler-speech-by-chancellor-hitler-to-the-nazi-party-in-munich-february-1941 "Even after the collapse of 1918 this bourgeois world had failed to realize that an old world was vanishing and a new one being born and that there is no use in supporting and thus artificially maintaining what has been found to be decayed and rotten, but that something healthy must be substituted for it. A social structure that had become obsolete had cracked and every attempt to maintain it was bound to fail." (The collapse of capitalism is inevitable!? My goodness, where have I heard that before....) "Thereupon Judaism began systematically to undermine our nation from within, and it found its best ally in those narrow-minded bourgeoisie who would not recognize that the era of a bourgeois world is ended and will never again return, that the epoch of unbridled economic liberalism has outlived itself and can only lead to its self-destruction and, above all, that the great tasks of our time can be mastered only under an authoritarian coordination of natural strength, based on the law of same rights for all and, thence, of same duties." www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adolf-hitler-broadcast-on-the-12th-anniversary-of-the-national-socialist-regime-january-1945 "Internally, in the "coalition" which we know only too well, they included all the enemies of the Reich, beginning with the Frankfurter Zeitung, and the entire stock market speculator-group..." "I am calm therefore when I face any German who is fighting in the East, or who comes home on leave-and I can tell each one of them, just look at our organization. Compare our home cities, compare the workers' settlements which we are building, compare our social organization with what you have seen on the other side. Compare the fate and the lot of the German farmer with the lot of that Russian farmer. Compare all of that, my dear friend, and then give me your judgment as to who has managed things better, and above all else, who has had more honorable intentions? Not one man has as yet returned, who could express any other opinion than that if a Socialistic State were in the process of being realized anywhere, it was in Germany only that it was actually taking place. That is still another reason why this other world which so willingly represents capitalistic interests in particular, is attacking us. It is a combine, which even today still pretends to be able to rule the world according to its private capitalistic interests, to manage it, and when necessary, to keep on ruling it." "Then I was making pilgrimages up and down through the German countryside, from North to South and from East to West, and wore myself out, only in order to save my people from this misery, into which these rulers of international capitalism had forced it." "Regarding the material values, however, I believe them; they do have a fine instinct for them. But we have it too. The only difference is that we want to make sure under all circumstances that the material values of Europe will in the future benefit the European peoples also, and not an extra-continental little international finance's clique-that is our unshakable and inexorable resolve. The people of Europe are not fighting afterwards so that a few people of fine instincts should again come along and begin to plunder mankind and make millions of unemployed, just in order to fill their vaults." "Above all, however, they will be happy if they themselves get the benefit of the reward for this work, if their peoples benefit, if their working men and women benefit, and not a vault which is in the Bank of London, if you wish, or in New York. I believe therefore that at the end of this war there will be collapse of this domination of gold, externally also, and thereby the collapse of this whole society which is to blame for this war." www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adolf-hitler-speech-on-the-19th-anniversary-of-the-ldquo-beer-hall-putsch-rdquo-november-1942 "She (Mrs. Roosevelt)-declined to live with her sons in a world such as the one we have worked out. And quite right, for this is a world of labour and not of cheating and trafficking." "the Anglo-Saxon-Jewish-Capitalist World" "From all these actions, it may be clearly seen how, with all his hatred for Socialist Germany, he forms the resolution of taking over, as safely and securely as possible, the British Empire in the moment of its downfall." www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hitler-s-speech-declaring-war-against-the-united-states "I, on the other hand, have been striving for twenty years with a minimum of intervention and without destroying our production, to arrive at a new Socialist order in Germany which not only eliminates unemployment but also permits the worker to receive an ever greater share of the fruits of his labor." www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adolf-hitler-declaration-of-war-on-the-soviet-union-june-1941 "It was also they who incited the ranks of the plutocracies to war, and it is the Jews who have driven America to war against all her own interests, simply and solely from the Jewish capitalistic point of view." "On one side we find the exponents of democracy, that is Jewish capitalism with all its deadweight of obsolete political theories and parliamentary corruption, its out-moded social order, the Jewish brain trust, the Jewish newspapers, stock exchanges and banks, a concern of mixed political and economic profiteers of the worst order," "For the first time the Bolshevists were not only beaten by a government, but above all the Marxists were won over, won over for the reconstruction of a better and healthier order of society which does not see in the state the carrier of a protection for a certain stratum of society, but the supposition for the conservation of the life of all." www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adolf-hitler-speech-to-the-reichstag-assuming-new-power-april-1942 (Note his separation of "Bolshevists" and "Marxists." Hitler certainly hated the Bolsheviks, but as his generals agreed, he felt that Nazism was the "purer" socialism. Since the USSR's socialism resulted in more murders, rapes, and general misery, obviously their version of socialism was actually more pure--but nonetheless, Hitler took pains to make it clear that he was an opponent of the Bolsheviks and that he had no issues with socialism--much like other socialists who war with fellow socialists, do not become non-socialist or anti-socialist.) (Amusingly enough, socialists are quite fond of reminding us that George Orwell, who accidentally wrote two of the most effective anti-socialist books ever, was a socialist--and yet Orwell viciously hated Russian Bolshevik socialism, declaring it to be an impure, corrupted version) But wait--there's more!! Nazi Germany even provided a 25-point program... 7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. 11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery. 12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). 14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries. 18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race. (Emphasis mine) 25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. AND they put "socialist" right there in the name.
@@kenabbott8585 when's the book report on your comment due? No but seriously. I'm not going to spend a half hour reading quotes from Adolf Hitler's speeches. Ofc he was trying to appeal to the common man. Ofc he wanted people to think he had the interests of the workers in mind. You know who else does that? Every person who has ever been in politics. Hitler was not a Socialist. In fact, he hated the ideas of both Communism and Socialism. He even organized bands of thugs to attack socialists in the streets. He had a shit load (idk the exact number but we'll say 1 shit load) of Communists killed and jailed. To say Adolf Hitler was a Socialist is just ludicrous. Btw, I don't support Antifa and I never said "anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi" you're putting words in my mouth. AND you still didn't say whether or not the DPRK is democratic.
*”Socialism is the science of dealing with the weal. Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take socialism away from the socialists.* *Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Or German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.”* -ADOLF HITLER *Hitlers Zweites Buch* - Author, ADOLF HITLER. *Page 50. “I am a socialist.”* A German who didn’t sleep in history class huh? Guess you just weren’t smart enough to remember any of it then.
@@legitimatelypissedoff4409 ye cause we read hitlers books in history class xd. i do not define a persons believes after what they say but after what they do. you quoting this already implies a certain political perspective
Dude, I am simply floored by your level of patience. Putting in what must be hours of work to take down an argument that is so incredibly stupid as this. You just have to listen to what Crowder says to know he has no idea what he is talking about. I'm writing this while 15 minutes into the video so I don't know if it'll come up but Crowder never heard of the Führerprinzip and how it is drastically different from democracy in terms of distribution of power and responsibility (listen to what Göring has to say about this during the Nuremberg Trials) or that he thinks all socialism is marxist socialism. For the German right wing socialism did not mean class struggle or egalitarism but dissolving the individual to live and serve fully in society.
I agree. You won't talk sense into the main figures themselves. But it think, many people can understand the facts through this who would otherwise have fallen prey to Steven Crowder and those others.
@Connor Beachler No, I don't hate him. I'm really more sorry for him and sad about the damage he does. And that I am because he's delusional and spreads his delusions around.
@Connor Beachler This video. I honestly don't know much about Steven Crowder, he might be a great guy, but if he thinks the Nazis were left wing, then he's delusional, at least in that regard.
@Connor Beachler Have you even watched the video? This is one of the specific points that were debunked. In short: 1. Names don't necessarily mean anything. Woodchucks don't chuck wood. 2. The Nazis saw *National*socialism as the antithesis to the "jewish-bolshewist socialism" of the soviet union - whose supporters in Germany were the left wing. You see, the Nazis and the actual Socialists (and communists) were deadly enemies - which is also showcased by the fact, that the KPD (communist party) opposed the NSDAP most strongly of all parties and its members were the first group that the Nazis deported - long before the jews. This is the short version, please watch the video before making any more claims that were debunked right above.
@Connor Beachler Please read my comment again. I said names don't _necessarily_ mean anything. Like in this case. Or in the case of the woodchucker. And no, that assertion about the Nazis feelings towards the socialists is incorrect - as you would know, had you actually seen and understood the video. It features original texts by Nazis concerning the socialists and you will see that their feelings towards one another were really of a different order of magnitude. Why would you even assert such things? Do you really think anyone believes you, when you claim that the Nazis made special efforts to suppress and kill their allies in the fight for socialism just for being ineffective while at the same time strengthening the conservatives who were against socialism? Do you even really believe that yourself? You must see how ridiculous those claims are.
I like how Crowders even misunderstands democracy and says it's "under mob rule," when actually it means rule by the people in greek and there are multiple variations of which. For example, the two things he says are separate aren't at all, like representative democracies (aka republics) and direct democracy (which he puts as the strict definition of democracy). You learn this in grade 7 social science.
Schools in the US need to do a better job teaching political terms. If people actually knew the definitions of socialism, nationalism, capitalism etc then they wouldn't be susceptible to political hacks like Crowder and Shapiro.
If schools did a better job at teaching history, they would see that white people did not start slavery, are one of the few races that ended slavery, Republicans had more civil rights advocates in office during the 60s, and Stalin and his far-leftist killed more people than Hitler.
Tbh, Stalins leadership had many fascist characteristics. At least the person cult was existing. But... the USSR was not a ethnic nationalistic driven state. (Fatherlandish war aside). There is a seed of truth there. But propably not for the reason Shapiro thinks.
@ If it's that well documented, then why do these false claims keep getting peddled? Anyways, I don't mean "tell kids in school, what the Nazis did and that they weren't leftist, but also show them how modern reactionaries and the far right argue, where they act basically the same as the Nazis did and how to spot dog-whistles. This video die more than present historical context and that is what's important imo, else the Nazis are just some horrible crazy dudes from the past and the danger of the ideology of fascists stays abstract until it's too late.
"[hitler] was radically pro abortion"
jesus what a weasley way to frame eugenics.
Also I see you visited the same snopes article I did when I made my video on this subject :P
I was thinking the same thing lol.
Hitler was pro abortion if you change the meaning of all of those words to intentionally mislead people. Theres a word for that that ive heard before but am drawing a complete blank on right now.
@A piece of fucking sliced white bread! Yes each word is technically correct by certain definitions, but in the context of our modern understanding of the terms the sentence as a whole is not. Its like a big game of telephone only instead of the words changing its the meanings. Crowder has changed "pro eugenics plans" to be "pro forced abortion for non-aryans" to then just "pro abortion".
No. A regime that outlawed abortion, set up a "Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion", and even went so far as to make it a capital offense cannot be considered "radically pro-abortion" as Crowder put it.
"Socialism is when the government does stuff, and the more stuff the government does, the more socialister it is."
-Karl Marx
And the more death is causes.
"Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic."
- Adolph Hitler
Lane Funai,
You're putting a lot faith in the words of Hitler.
@@abegarfield3754 I think you're mixing up the Hilters here. The one you're referring too is Adolf Hitler, but Lane Funai is referring to his nephew: Adolph!
@@abegarfield3754 I have faith that he said that. And history proves that practiced socialism. What's your faith in?
Oh boy, Steven loses the thread immediately.
"I know what you're going to say. NATIONAL Socialism, not DEMOCRATIC Socialism"
No, the thing I would say is "Just because you use a word doesn't make you that word, and it was very clearly just a branding effort because of the popularity of socialism at the time as a worker's movement, even though his beliefs and actions were incompatible with socialism in any form."
Steven has also said something to the effect of "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not Democratic or for the people just because it's in the name." And then calls Nazis socialists because it's in their name haha
Some right wingers just can't get the idea that it's not just a name that defines something but practices.
Exactly. Antifa stands for Anti-Fascist, it is right in the name, yet rightwingers are all freaking out because the Antifa people are the "real fascists." Jeebus these people are such self-serving hypocritical dipwads - if the argument suits them at the time, even if it contradicts some other point they made only a few seconds ago, they will make it.
Wasn't there a civil war in Germany immediately after WW1 involving tons of far left movements and far right freikorps and mercenaries fighting each other? Including the creation of a country that lasted a very brief time called the Bavarian Socialist Republic? The Nazi party rose out of the far right freikorps groups, and adopted the worker-friendly imagery of the far left to court more appeal for the lower class. To say that the far right and left who had just been fighting in the streets a decade earlier literally represent the same party in the NSDAP would seem a bit silly.
"I know what you're going to say!"
Translation: "Here's a straw position!"
Antlions have "lion" in their name and also have legs. Thus they are mammals.
They are also lions obviously
@@ruth078 A living dog is better, than a dead lion, though.
"Behold, I have brought you a man!"-Diogenes.
Yeah tbh all monsters are like Pokemons. Trust me it's in the name: Pocket Monsters.
Mmm yes remember that “unite the left” rally in Charlottesville? Wait...
Always funny how Rightoid Posterboys like Crowder manage to bend a full 360 degrees in regards to that. If the Nazis were leftist why do so many modern American right-wing Edgelords wave their flag? Why would American right-wingers use their symbols if the Nazis were actually leftist and the American right hates them? It makes no sense at all!
Wernher von Kerman bending a full 360 degrees puts you in the same position as before
Lars Frisk those evil leftists saying death to gay people, wait......
A Untie The Left rally could be even more deadly
George Lincoln Rockwell yeah because leftist know how to make Molotovs and pips bombs
"The US was founded to protect the minority"
*Laughs in 80% of American history*
Yeah we are not apologetic about our country's history and that was one of the most blatant lies I've heard come out of his cesspool of a mouth
I think he meant the "Political Minority". Most of the time thats what people like him mean. In reality, the "political minority" was still fucked over, just not "officially"
found to protect the minority of the rich!
To be honest I can't even tell what kind of minority people are even thinking about. Political minority, group minority, race minority, religious minority and of what ?
@@emperorhirohito3965
Wealth minority.
Ahh, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. My favorite Democracy.
You can vote in North Korea, you know!
There's just only one candidate and if you do anything else (write-in someone), it's off to Korean gulags with you.
@MB4237 Not just my favorite democracy...but my fave Democratic Republic...just edging out the USA
(because according to 'Make me change my concreted mind', democracies are fascist or is it socialist...no communist...oh God my head is spinning!
Wolf spiders. My favorite wolf.
Or Buffalo wings, my favourite wings. Or the Titmouse, my favourite rodent. IT'S IN THE NAME THOUGH!!1!
First Last Im just gonna assume you’re joking
“The Irish Republican Party are conservatives because they have the word Republican in them. Oh and the Liberal Party in Australia are left wing bc they say “Liberal”.” I am smart American.” -same argument of crowder
Lol so true
"The Irish Republican Party are conservatives because they have the word Republican in them"
That's not what the word republican means.
@@buntings that's the joke, man
@@buntings
The communist parties of China, Cambodia and Russia were communist because they had/have the word 'communist' in them. And because all 3 main leaders, Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin, were devout and committed communists. Well-read, intelligent and democidal Marxist-Leninists.
That sigh at the beginning is the exact sound I made when I read “Steven Crowder”
I do this
th-cam.com/video/SMYgcS53Ezk/w-d-xo.html
Okoye's Wig You should watch him get destroyed by Alexa on the topic of communism and fascism.
The sad realization that a comedian knows more about a topic than you do can be hard to take. You wouldn't have to if you'd stop being wrong.
@@lanefunai4714 ´´comedian´´
It's like, physically difficult to listen to Steven Crowder to say this shit. This is going to be a hard watch.
I find myself skipping the bits of reactionary video and fast-forwarding to the debunking more and more. Probably because the reichwingers sound more and more like Goebbels by the day.
Same! I haven't heard of Crowder until now, but dear lord he is wince inducing.
It's that squeak in his voice. Still better than Paul Joseph Watson though.
This asshat uses the word "by definition" so much and I want to punch a dictionary through his face to teach him what that word means.
Cafelogis Honestly I would rather watch BPS, he actually sounds bearable (Not the content, but his voice).
I’m reporting this video for making me listen to Steven Crowder for so long.
Especially that “German” accent 🤮
@@nightlydrugs6927 i kept repeating the video over and over
because of this accent
i swear i almost hit the dislike button instinctively at one point
@@nightlydrugs6927 what about the accent?
@@reudensplasher1659 Hes not talking about three arrow's accent. Hes talking about crowder's impersonation of Hitler.
I think
"Our adopted term socialism has nothing to do with Marxist socialism"
-Adolf Hitler
hitler also said that there wasnt much difference between the two. That difference being international marxism focus vs a national nazi focus. Hitler was 110 percent lefty, just not a marxist. He hated capitalism and thought it was created by jews to benefit jews. Read his book if you have to
Psssht! Facts! You'll confuse them
@Shwazara ok and? You can believe in a mixed economy and still be awful
@Shwazara It literally wpuldn't matter if Hitler did some things you (mistakenly) think are socialism. Because he still commited genocide - the economy has little to do with it.
@Shwazara Not really... Socialism is advocating for the means of production to be put into the hand of the workers.
Nazi Germany did nothing like that, absolutely the opposite. Reliable/regime loyal capitalists were rewarded with disowned companies from Jews and other enemies of the Nazi state, if they were not loyal, they ended up disowned themselves and one of the Nazi "Bonzen" got enriched by being made head of the new nationalized property.
There is nothing socialist in that policy.
They also were violently opposed to Unions and murdered union leaders before they created their own pseudo union to replace them, a Union that no longer represented worker's rights, but enforced loyalty to the State. Still not Socialist.
Crowder's politics are bad enough, but does he also have to be so aggressively, militantly unfunny?
Conservatives rarely understand how humor work. You should see his Kim Jon Um stand in calling Obama the n word.
@@RadTrashed Leftism has gone too far, I can't say slurs anymore
This guy literally got fired from Fox News for being too unfunny, yeah the network that ran the half hour news hour.
Durango Savage I seem to have found that pattern out.
“Comedians” that are conservative just want to piss off an audience.
Huh... that sounds pretty observant.
That's how conservative comedy works.
This video has been needed for a long time. Thank you.
I love your channel big fan
It shouldn't have been needed at all, noone should need a video like this to realise that the Nazi's wasn't left wing, socialist or liberals. Nor do I really think it's needed, I know people believe really really really crazy things, but I don't for second believe that anyone are truely confused as to wether the Nazi's where right wing or not.
The fact that a video like this is actually needed is truly sad.
It’s so cool seeing you on this channel
Is Cody, a closeted conservative?
I almost spit out my water when I saw Crowder called Hitler "pro-choice" because of his eugenics programs.
It must be because I'm a snowflake who can't handle LOGIC and FACTS
That's the situation I find myself in. I can't handle LOGIC and FACTS. They just don't care about my feelings.
ikr the second i heard him mention pro-choice i knew he was going to go down that road. these conservative guys like to play semantic games with the meanings of words, ignoring context in an attempt to deceive. it's really the beginnings of some scary orwellian shit going on.
So murdering unborn human beings is ok then... Got it.
Nazis bad. Murdering kids ok.
Thats not confusing in the least. TY.... o.O
@@shanelang3236 You're missing the point. It's irrelevant whether _you_ think inducing a miscarriage of an undeveloped fetus is the same as murder. Fact of the matter is Hitler utilized abortion specifically for social control to enforce his reactionary vision of a genetic hierarchy. He pushed it upon non-Aryans and people with "undesired" hereditary traits & outlawed it for those the Third Reich believed contributed to a "purified" Aryan race.
It's just a little funny that Crowder is trying so hard to draw nonexistent comparisons between Hitler's clear-cut right wing authoritarianism and modern liberalization of abortion that he literally calls THAT pro-choice.
Because hitler was undenably rightwing, extreme rightwing. Rightwingers using such an arument against the left is just waiting to be called out. And if it werent so silly and wrong, it could be funny.
“It’s called the national SOCIALIST party!”
To anyone saying this I introduce you to the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea
Or the DDR
god, people in 50 years are gonna be arguing that nk was democratic the whole time right
@@CEDEREL some already are
@@CEDEREL Have you seen Infrared? XD
@@miyukidawn9803 oh shit Dance Dance Revolution?
"Is educating people left-wing? I don't know. You tell me" ... that's a pretty sick burn, Three Arrows
The right wing were book burners.
The left is now a group of book burners.
@@siemino7444 everyone becomes a book burner when the books are against them.
@@lukamilosevic661 I'm genuinely surprised i got a reasonable answer on a far left channel, as for the books, good point
@@siemino7444 yeah i'm pretty much moderate, a bit hanging to the left a bit to the right on several issues. I just hang around this guy's videos because I kinda like them as videos
@@siemino7444 Leftists are intellectuals, right-wingers are anti-intellectuals
Leftists want to look back on history through different lenses and become unbiased
Right-wingers want to keep it as they are not have any doubt on the events of history
Just because the Nazi stood for national socialist party or whatever is irrelevant. North Korea claims to be a democratic republic, that doesn't make it true.
@EAM ELAS EPON No, I only replied to previous comment.
@ANTHONY COLE Hitler lead Bavarian NSDAP
@@jumpjimcrow6959 free healthcare and medicare had both already existed in some form during the german empire.
Even today Germans don't consider it "left" because it was implemented by a staunch anti-parlamentarian anti-left royalist, Otto von Bismarck, first german chancellor.
@@phonix6352 Yes but national socialists changed social programs in their way. Bismarck's programm and Hitler's programm weren't the same.
@@phonix6352 Yes, and it is Socialist too (and the german was puzzle to lose the first world war, because Socialism was so good compare to liberal country... Or not)
Kitty Werthmann also claimed that Austria's healthcare system, before Hitler, was privately insured even thought it is widely known(as you state here) that the Habsburg empire introduced public health insurance in 1888.
She also claimed that Hitler introduced the "equal rights amendment"(I am not joking) that gave equal rights to women. The truth is that the National Socialists actively discouraged women from pursuing careers, kicking thousands out of the civil service etc. She also claimed that everyone was paid the same....even thought the stats show that income inequality grew under Nazi policies..
At least he opened up many new jobs! I wonder how he did that... /s
Yeah it’s almost as if the US right and its mercenaries use more bad faith than good, and it works too because their core audience has read like 3 books and has microwaved brain syndrome.
In the months after Hitler took power, SA and *Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party* some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany.
*However, the assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, right-wing totalitarian power*
Yes, the Nazis were indisputably Right-Wing
Sometimes the claim is bandied about that the Nazis were a left-wing party on economic questions, perhaps because the Nazis were called “National socialists”. This is flatly and completely wrong and a form of pseudo-historiography. Here’s why:
The Nazi party was built on right-wing voters and a right-wing support base:
There are many disputes about the nature of Hitler’s voting base. What isn’t under dispute though is that prior to voting Nazi, Nazi voters voted for centre-right and far-right parties, or didn’t vote at all. Support for the Nazis did not come from disaffected left-wing or centre-left voters, but from right-wing voters frustrated with the existing parties of the right.
In my view this point alone is decisive. The meaning of right-wing and left-wing is not an ahistorical abstraction, it’s created by the behaviour of people and institutions. The right-wing citizens of Germany implicitly recognised the Nazis as right-wing by voting for them, case closed.
Read more about which parties Nazi voters defected from here: gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/nazivp.pdf
2. The Nazis literally invented privatisation:
The Nazis were responsible for huge privatisation programs. The extent of their privatisations was enormous, but it was particularly vast when compared with other countries at the time, who were generally moving in the opposite direction. The privatisations of Nazi Germany may indeed have been the first mass privatisations of public property in history and included “Steel, mining, banking, shipyard, ship-lines, and railways.” More on how Nazis bucked historical trends by privatising when no one else was here: www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
3. Nazi policies greatly increased income inequality:
Income inequality spiked under Hitler, as was observed even at the time. More here: piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/Sweezy39.pdf
4. Capital as a share of factor income also spiked under Hitler, at the expense of wages:
Factor income describes the division between the factors of production, with land receiving rent, capital receiving profit and labour receiving wages. The capital share, or profit as a proportion of total income, increased by about 50% in Nazi Germany and was much higher than the US’s capital share at the time. See the below graph from Capital in the Twenty-First Century reproduced in a Jacobin article by Corey Robin:
I’m sorry if there’s not much in the way of Belles-lettres here. If I am blunt it is for a purpose. The Nazis were right-wing. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong, much in the same way it is wrong to say that the world is flat, six-thousand years old, or made of cheese.
DemocraticSocialist01 hey I really enjoyed your videos
@@Counter-Intuitive you're not exactly right in part 2. Italian fascists privatized insurance companies, telephone services, and trains before nazis but nazis did first used the term "privatization". Also, they did more of it as they were much more advanced than the Italian economy.
"Killing somebody because of their ethnicity is exactly the same as taking away money and power from rich people." Wow, great take there, Crowder.
ProfessorGrimm and y’all stole an anti communist movements symbol because you wanted diversify your symbolism. The iron front was against monarchism, nazism, and communism.
@@goforbroke4428 Stalinism, which many socialists, like those found in the iron front, opposed. You need to check out how the left responds to tankies malding whenever China does something, or when you bring up the Holodomor.
@@Vraptor1 I’m well aware of the pro Bolshevik crowd sees the Chinese and how they feel on holodomor. I mean the USSR did fight the Chinese along the Ussuri river and in the 30s.
@@Vraptor1 the old iron front seemed more like a moderate anti monarchist/fascist/communist group made up of the more liberal factions of german politics.
@@Vraptor1 the rift between the Bolsheviks and the Maoist’s is based more on which group of workers the respective countries paid heed to. Mao saw the rural peasantry as the group to organize and revolt. While the Bolsheviks saw the urban peasant/urban worker as the group to organize and revolt. The Soviet trained faction of the CCP wanted to follow the Bolshevik concept when Mao knew very well that it wouldn’t work in China. The Soviets and the Chinese have disdain for each mostly because Mao didn’t become a Soviet puppet.
"He was heavily influnced by Marx"... Um yes Ben, he was, he was heavily influenced by it in the opposite way. He literally called it a threat to the level it'd wipe out humanity.
Pretty much everyone alive has been heavily influenced by Marx so it’s not a meaningful claim anyway.
That is influence in a way.
@@metallipwn I mean true, but he tries to make it sound like Hitler was a marxist, when he literally said it was going to bring about human extinction if not stopped. It's was just a bit of a dishonest attempt by Three Arrows to associate.
And i'm so sick of the left calling the right Fascist nazis, and the right calling the left fascist nazis. And then even worse people thinking national socialism was the same thing as communism.
Best way to explain it, would be, social programs designed to promote the health and prosperity of the nation vs, trying to fuck everything up so every one is so broken down and dependent on the state to maintain power while laughing all the way to the bank the prols now longer get to go to, because money is bad except for the rich people who still have it.
Don't get wrong, I still think long term even national socialism would create problems because of the socialized incentive programs, a had it not get murdered out of existence. And wouldn't really want to see a long term implementation of this system, although can see it's utility in a short term course correction for a country.
TheJadeFist Crowder claimed that Hitler was heavily influenced by Marx, which is true but also distorted here to make it seem as if he was pro-Marx.
Since even Steven Crowder is heavily influenced by Marxism without even realizing it (everyone is) that statement in and of itself is meaningless. Holocaust survivors were heavily influenced by the Holocaust, doesn’t mean they like it.
Better be careful about going after Crowder, he might challenge you to a debate and then chicken out at the last minute
Don't forget he'll also say you we're the one who chickens out lol.
@@juannegrete2348 if he actually does start losing a debate he'll start telling his opponent you're speaking in paragraphs, and not let you finish making your point like he tried doing against Joe rogan and a college kid named yusef.
27:57 How that a joke tho? The republicoons were for the abolition of slavery and the democrats LITERALLY CREATED the KKK. Abe Lincoln was republican homeboy.
Vincent P I hope you’re a troll. You’re either a very bad troll, or your really stupid.
@@TheFourthWall14 that's because the old conservatives slave owners who called themselves Democrats switch party and now called themselves Republicans. They are still the same conservatives losers of the civil war. Read a history book and educate yourself.
Dude this has been getting on my nerves so much lately. Ignorance will never fail to amaze.
Just lately? It's been doing my head in for years-some Americans never cease to amaze me in their either willful ignorance or their willingness to say anything to make a dollar. Unfortunately here in the uk has some of the same problems
Sad, but true.
@Clifford your big red God its a MOSTLY American problem which has spilled over-that better for ya sport?
@@teethgrinder83 I've encountered this argument on german social media too.
@@ConstantinKlose-sj4mb that's depressing-so much for the Internet enlightening people I guess
Why is "liberal" and "leftist" the same thing, according to Crowder?
Because he’s an idiot
@@brandonk.4864 Or an American because political labels there are completely fluid
because he has to obfuscate the terms so his audience remains politically illiterate so they fall for his bullshit.
because he's a U.S. republican - and in his audience's mindset there are two things you can be: a Republican White Supremacist or.... literally anything else - and literally anything else therefore is to be used interchangably with a slur
@@terawatt1 Are you calling all Republicans white supremacists? If so, what is your proof?
It's a depressing thing to realize that untangling bullshit demands far more time and effort than creating it. Kudos for the honest work you do.
The 25 point Nazi plan proves they were socialists. Period.
i don't actually know how true that is! you have to research facts to twist them. sometimes during these debunkings i am very impressed at the density of misinformation, especially PragerU's video on the southern strategy
@@michaelnewman7248 ez
@@TuhljinTampergauge lmao yeah, make it easy for yourself, like your whole lazy ideology
@@TuhljinTampergauge There were some socialists in the party during the earliest days of the DAP. They were called Strasserites, and believed in socialism for Aryans. When Hitler won the power struggle within the party he had all the Strasserites kicked out, spent many hours reassuring corporate interests he was their ally, and during the Night of Long Knives had their former leader, Otto Strasser, assassinated. Virtually none of the 25 point programme was enacted when the Nazis were in power, and as the video demonstrates they were overwhelmingly right-wing/capitalist. Maybe read a book about the Nazis if you're going to talk about them, so you don't look like an ignorant jackass?
This argument is so dumb I'm shocked you mustered the energy to debunk it. Kudos
My brain is melting and Crowder has only been speaking for 20 seconds the leaps in logic and just like wtf is he talking about.
like i always say, you don't need to drink a glass of piss to know that it is piss.... just the smell should be enough information; crowder's rhetoric smells like sewer.
"Democracy is Mob Rule"
Crowder with the mask-off moment right out the gate
Also a very weird argument for him to make as he produces MOB entertainment.
Or has the realization begun to set in, that the rabble is NOT a majority, silent or loud?
I laughed when Crowder tried to imply that democracies and democratic republics are mutually exclusive
Democracy is mob rule.
As a Swiss, I am quite surprised to learn that I am ruled by a mob
@@Angrenost02 What do you think a "mob" is? We're not talking about an Italian mafia. It means the populace. In direct democracy the people hold all the power and majority rules always. It's not that hard to comprehend.
The reason the Nazis made kindergarten and school free to use was not because they were socialists. The reason was that it allowed them to hit two birds with one stone: the parents could continue to work - and they'd have the children from their youngest age to indoctrinate them with Nazi ideology, teach them all the necessary skills and knowledge to contribute to advancement of the Arian race, and pick the best candidates for the next generation of Nazi leadership.
Indoctrinate? Are you saying that because they're "Nazis"?
Lots of people drop off their kids on daycare in USA, does that mean the daycare indoctrinates them into left wing ideology?
@@omega0195 daycare in the US isn't a public service, and a daycare would get sued into the ground if it taught leftist philosophy to toddlers
@@mace1312 you don't think we have public schools in America?
@@getschwiftysuperschwifty3282 no I know we have public schools, but daycare for babies and toddlers are a different private business, even if school can act like daycare.
@@omega0195 The mere presence of public schools does not automatically make them tools for indoctrination. Whether the US system specifically is an indoctrination tool or not is up for discussion, but that comes from how the system is used, not the mere fact that the system exists. An education system is a hammer, it can be used to build or destroy, and *anyone* can use it for either purpose. If all schools were privatized, that would not prevent the owners from instilling their own agenda into the students.
“Hitler was a socialist liberal”
Spat out my tea (this has been happening to me a lot lately)
These people just parrot leftists talking points then facts and reality hit them they still brainwash them selves. That is the height of stupidity. these people think hitler was for limited government and capitalism LOL!
fascism is inherently anti-liberal lol
*”Socialism is the science of dealing with the weal. Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take socialism away from the socialists.*
*Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Or German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.”* -ADOLF HITLER
*Hitlers Zweites Buch* - Author, ADOLF HITLER.
*Page 50. “I am a socialist.”*
@@legitimatelypissedoff4409 You’re just as bad as the people who cite newspaper articles saying “if the South secedes, it won’t be because of slavery.” Like, the whole reason the article exists is because everybody knew the truth, and someone wrote an article in opposition to what everyone knew (Southern papers claiming the South’s “peculiar institution” wasn’t the real issue, Hitler proclaiming himself a socialist after denouncing Gregor Strasser, himself not really a socialist, for having “too extreme” socialist ideas)
And your quote undermines itself, because it explicitly aligns itself in opposition to Communism and Marxism, boogiemen to the right and the whole reason “Socialism” is a dirty word in the first place.
Hitler was more than happy to enrich capitalists, dismantle unions (and send their leaders to concentration camps), and outright murder anybody remotely left wing, including (extremely moderate) Social Democrats. The idea that Hitler himself was a socialist is farcical, hence him having to reach for nonsense like “Socialism is an ancient Aryan Germanic institution.”
In short, you’re a clown and you should feel embarrassed (but I know you won’t, don’t worry). Also, you missed the entire point of my comment, which was the fact that calling someone a “Socialist Liberal” is total nonsense, comedically so.
Omg a 42 min three arrows video
Time to get some tea bois
Lol I just got a cup of tea
And I was just about to go to bed.... oh well, better to have bleary eyes in the morning.
@Almighty God George Soros #420 #GetRekd por que no los dos?
Germany was mostly ruled by a conservative party after WWII, and still "Rechts" (right wing) is a bad word in Germany. When some one is called right wing in Germany, they literally call him a Nazi.
You people in the US don't understand that right wing doesn't mean "small government".
THANK YOU
i swear to god, even highly educated people seem to fail to understand this. the different between right and left isn’t small gov vs. big gov, it’s hierarchy vs. no hierarchy.
I think the political compass is the best way to plot political standpoints
@@quanicle101 hierarchy is more based in capitalism and the right-wing embrace of capitalism. There is no racial component to capitalist hierarchy. All the major capitalist philosophers were in support of both hierarchy, freedom and abolition.
@@quanicle101 It's way more complex than that.
Right wing is mir about rage or nationalist interests.
Left wings are/were more about class and social justice for the working class.
Saying they are opposed on the spectrum would be wrong, they can even be combined.
I mean, the social party in Denmark is shame immigration, but for social care.
...
Sorry
@@radschele1815 none of that contradicts what i said
next up on Steven Crowders channel: "Cleopatra was a libertarian capitalist and here is why"
I doubt the Ancient Egyptians were political at all
Libertarians are capitalists... Im a libertarian that believes in and knows the value of Capitalism
@@Pink_pr1ncess
What on earth do you think is and isnt political?
@@frankie1597
No?
Libertarians can be either socialist or capitalist
@@gunjfur8633 it was originally a leftist ideology until right wingers stole the term
"Okay Steven, here's two unlabeled cups of which you must drink one: one with water and one with hyrdogen peroxide. They're both just hydrogen and oxygen, so there's no difference, right?"
jjmblue7 h2o vs h2o2. Yeah same exact thing right? ‘’’logic’’’
ARMORED SAINT that’s kinda the point ?
They both have h and o
The joke is they’re practically the same
"""Logic"""" 101
@@TheJoethud22 The comparison is lost on ARMORED STUPIDASS.
@@ARMOREDSAINT23 Quit trying, champ.
"Nazis were socialists!" Tell a Neo-Nazi they're a socialist and see what happens.
hahahahahahh
Neo Nazis are about as common as Bigfoot and are not the same as the Marxists that controlled the German govt in WWII
@@hepwo91222 >Marxists
>WWII Germany
lol
Meanwhile, I'm in two different fb arguments with real deal white nationalists I encountered in the wild. Or bigfoots, as you call them.
@@awol.oper8r not sure one could fill a stadium with white supremacists in America in 2020, but we could fill cities with American hating indentitarian communists.
hepwo91222 are you for real ? You obviously don’t realise how many alt right members there are because there are a lot more than you seem to think
Us leftists need to strike back. Gonna make a bunch of videos about how Stalin was actually a Reaganite
Lol
LMAO! Please do!
Fucking do it. I need that shit in my life, haha
Please, that would be great
Nah. Stop that nonsense. Reagan only listened to the holy Bible. it was some edition in mandarin. red cover with golden letters. had an exotic touch.
Next up: was Karl Marx a libertarian?
That is honestly hard to say.
While he wanted a collective economy, his ideal society was one in which did not require a leader or centralized government, as the government would have been the community. If everyone acts upon their purpose to the society there would have been no need for a leader.
Communism, in its foundation, is a very anarchic principal. Well, actually the main end goal is very similar to anarchists, which is a stateless society. While anarchists (the level about Libertarians) want to disable the boundaries immediately, Marxist Communist is a gradual transition into a stateless society.
I do not know where Lenin, Stalin, and the Chinese got the central leader from.
What this shows is that the political spectrum is very complex.
Even in the context of debunking his "arguments" I can't hearing Crowder's stupidity
I'm going to have to watch this video in intervals
For bonus points: Try his global warming videos
May I recommend copious amounts of alcohol?
Though you will need to hit the harder stuff.
Steven Crowder's German impression might be the most infuriating thing on this earth.
As a german, I genuinely took offense to that. For... more than one reason
@@americantoastman7296 same. Though I am German myself I don't have strong connections to our culture but GOD I want to slap that man with a Weißwurst so badly
Wait till you see his Chinese impression, aka. him doing essentially blackface but for Chinese people.
"Infuriating" is absolutely correct. I've never taken offense in a German impression but holy shit, that fucker got my blood boiling.
Oh God grow some balls
The second Steven said “Hitler” and “Bernie Sanders” in the same sentence, I lost iq points.
I don't remember Bernie being anti-LGBT and anti-semantic like Hitler
@@mattwong5403 isn’t Bernie himself Jewish?
I think Steven was talking about economic policies if you actually watched the show the clip is from. Remember Bernie talking about bread lines being a good thing. The last time the US had breadlines was the great depression which lasted from 1929 to 1940
@@Leoluvesadmira Bernie never said breadlines were a good thing. Stop spreading lies.
he is saying their beliefs and ideology is the same which it is. its hilarious to this day the left still tries to make out hitler was a capitalist its fucking braindead beyond.
You left Crowder's fake German accent in. You monster! ;_;
And it still wasn't the worst thing he said.
You monster you didn't do a video the iconoclast(the ukip guy with 100,000 subs).
@@keyofw that's just sad.
Dang, I missed that because I fast-forwarded through any bits of modern Goebbels speaking.
NEIN NEIN NEIN
In the months after Hitler took power, SA and Gestapo agents went from door to door looking for Hitler’s enemies. They arrested Socialists, Communists, trade union leaders, and others who had spoken out against the Nazi party; some were murdered. By the summer of 1933, the Nazi party was the only legal political party in Germany. Nearly all organized opposition to the regime had been eliminated. Democracy was dead in Germany.
However, the assumption that because the word “socialist” appeared in the party’s name and socialist words and ideas popped up in the writings and speeches of top Nazis then the Nazis must have been actual socialists is naive and ahistorical. What the evidence shows, on the contrary, is that Nazi Party leaders paid mere lip service to socialist ideals on the way to achieving their one true goal: raw, right-wing totalitarian power.
Yes, the Nazis were indisputably Right-Wing
Sometimes the claim is bandied about that the Nazis were a left-wing party on economic questions, perhaps because the Nazis were called “National socialists”. This is flatly and completely wrong and a form of pseudo-historiography. Here’s why:
The Nazi party was built on right-wing voters and a right-wing support base:
There are many disputes about the nature of Hitler’s voting base. What isn’t under dispute though is that prior to voting Nazi, Nazi voters voted for centre-right and far-right parties, or didn’t vote at all. Support for the Nazis did not come from disaffected left-wing or centre-left voters, but from right-wing voters frustrated with the existing parties of the right.
In my view this point alone is decisive. The meaning of right-wing and left-wing is not an ahistorical abstraction, it’s created by the behaviour of people and institutions. The right-wing citizens of Germany implicitly recognised the Nazis as right-wing by voting for them, case closed.
Read more about which parties Nazi voters defected from here: gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/nazivp.pdf
2. The Nazis literally invented privatisation:
The Nazis were responsible for huge privatisation programs. The extent of their privatisations was enormous, but it was particularly vast when compared with other countries at the time, who were generally moving in the opposite direction. The privatisations of Nazi Germany may indeed have been the first mass privatisations of public property in history and included “Steel, mining, banking, shipyard, ship-lines, and railways.” More on how Nazis bucked historical trends by privatising when no one else was here: www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
3. Nazi policies greatly increased income inequality:
Income inequality spiked under Hitler, as was observed even at the time. More here: piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capitalisback/CountryData/Germany/Other/Pre1950Series/RefsHistoricalGermanAccounts/Sweezy39.pdf
4. Capital as a share of factor income also spiked under Hitler, at the expense of wages:
Factor income describes the division between the factors of production, with land receiving rent, capital receiving profit and labour receiving wages. The capital share, or profit as a proportion of total income, increased by about 50% in Nazi Germany and was much higher than the US’s capital share at the time. See the below graph from Capital in the Twenty-First Century reproduced in a Jacobin article by Corey Robin:
I’m sorry if there’s not much in the way of Belles-lettres here. If I am blunt it is for a purpose. The Nazis were right-wing. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong, much in the same way it is wrong to say that the world is flat, six-thousand years old, or made of cheese.
When he says "In my opinion, it's quite embarrassing for him" in that polite German accent it is somehow the most savage drag I've ever heard
Embarassed for 3 Arrows, they want to be right, but sadly the Nazis were socialists that leaned heavier on socialism/communism with remnants of capitalism in a mixed economy. By any modern metric they were left wing secular authoritarians.
@Gabriel Victor actual history. Never heard of Volkswagen? "Peoples' Car" ? Nazi Party invented it and it was part of the auto/manufacturing/defense industry. Nazi Party was mixed economy but leaned heavier towards socialism/communism as the name does spell out, but still had capitalism, probably would have less capitalism if the Nazi party lasted longer in Germany.
@@hepwo91222 Capitalist autarky and fascist corporatism do not a socialist economy make
@@Eastcyning socialism/communism by nature is fascistic. Also, yes, as long as this video is, its still disingenous, the Nazis were part of a mixed economy but leaned heavier on socialism/communism than capitalism. We will never know for sure, but if they lasted longer the capitalism elements probably would have reduced or possibly eliminated entirely.
@@hepwo91222 Just stop
Crowder’s humor is so forced and bland. I’m glad to have found an outlet to let this out.
Hes literally a failed comedian. The only reason his kind exist is to scare 60 year olds into dumping their savings into raw water or mud
@@VeryGnawty he dunks on so called "woke comedians" for being unfunny saying that comedy is dead, No Steven it just left u behind.
@@VeryGnawty So that's why he got fired from Fox News
@@cuber3603 I find him funny
@@redicd6857 I’m sorry
My favorite argument was when Dave Rubin claimed Hitler was a liberal because he was vegetarian
Lmao, that’s a new one
Dave Rubin will say anything for money (think Candace Owens) and is very empty
Wow that’s hilarious! Dave Rubin pisses me off though. He’s a complete & utter traitor to the LGBT+ community & eventually he’s going to learn that there are no “good ones” in the eyes of fascists
Honestly tho, it’s not like the problem with the Nazis was their economic policy..
I know right. It's like saying the big problem with Michael Myers was his choice of fashion.
MajorLeague Rhetoric is not the same as ideology or policy.
@MajorLeague That's capitalism lmao are you even councious,
@@user-vs6oe8fl3m He's an NPC.
@MajorLeague Redistribution of slaves is not socalism. Hitler wasn't a socialistic, are you braindead.
You have one of the most important political channels on youtube
Correct, we need to remain informed on the delusions and lies of the far-Left so that we can act accordingly.
Mattys Modern Life "The Nazis were not leftists" constitutes "delusions and lies of the far-Left?" Do you read your comments before you post them?
Mattys Modern Life Lmfao, you're 100% correct.
@@manspider1532 You're such a joke, dude.
@@julianerikson4191 Says the guy who has no argument and keeps hash tagging my name in every thread lol.
2:01
"That's because 'democracy' is mob rule."
...said Benito Mussolini. Seriously. Denouncing popular democracy as "mob rule" was one of the primary arguments put forth in the Doctrine of Fascism. This is a fascist talking point and if you ever hear anyone using it you should point this fact out to them.
have you ever read the founding fathers, or the federalist papers? have you ever read any enlightement philosopher? have you ever heard about any socialist country of the last 100 years? have you ever heard donald trump? or lenin? many people believe democracy is the rule of the mob
Every german 9th grader knows more about these topics then Steven Crowder with his millions of views
Ist einfach so. Typisch amerikaner, ohne Spaß.
*”Socialism is the science of dealing with the weal. Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take socialism away from the socialists.*
*Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Or German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.”* -ADOLF HITLER
*Hitlers Zweites Buch* - Author, ADOLF HITLER.
*Page 50. “I am a socialist.”*
@@legitimatelypissedoff4409 Not only is that an unreleased manuscript, but also, as the Video here points out, is it completely irrelevant. The Nazis werent socialists, even if they called themselves that, nor is the democratic peoples republic of north korea democratic.
@@wescha they nazis were socialist, both in name and in policy/action. They just weren't marxists, but a different kind of socialist
@@karlisulmanis3810 bullshit
seahorses are actually horses everyone
I mean crowder actually did bother having an argument, a bad argument but still
Cat's eyes in the road are actually made of cat's eyes.
pot holes are full of pot (@cops it's jokes)
Starfish are neither stars nor fish... Discuss
bees are actually letters
they put socialism in the name because at the time socialism was super popular in Germany and they wanted support from socialists.
do these people think that Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic?
I guess.
just not true, they put socialism 'cause they where socialists, but as usual, not the kind you like. stop treating others like idiots
To sum it up in a few sentences: The Nazis added the word "socialist" to their party's name - against Hitler's objections - to appeal to the left leaning working class in order to draw them away from Communism and toward volkish nationalism. The Nazi version of socialism relied on redefining German society from the notion of "Reichsdeutsche" (citizens of the German Empire) to that of "Volksdeutsche" (Germans with regard to ethnicity or race, rather than citizenship). Drexler specified that the socialist platform was only meant to give social welfare to German citizens deemed part of the Aryan race.
So no, Hitler and the NSDAP were NOT socialist in any sense it was or is used otherwise. It was no more socialist than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.
@Rasmus Vohlakari No. Socialist in name only.
@Rasmus Vohlakari Hitler was already a member when the word Socialist was added to its name. Socialism is based on civic or left-wing nationalism - inclusive forms that apply to all citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. - and is therefore easily distinguished from the right-wing ethnic nationalist ideology of the NSDAP.
PauliBhoy is correct, there was no socialism in Nazi Germany.
Socialism first and foremost is a system where the workers own the means of production and they themselves manage the enterprises. That has never happened under the Nazis, Hitler detested that with a passion. There was wide support for social policies, sure, but better access to healthcare, higher pensions, etc. is not socialism.
Hitler toned down the anti-socialist / anti-communist rhetoric for a while when he courted the USSR so they could divide Europe between them easily. That was not an ideological pact tho, it was a pact between two countries that both felt screwed over by the rest. And even when the state took control of the whole economy in order to throw everything into the total war, they didn't do it because of socialism, they just had to. And the workers saw nothing from it.
@Rasmus Vohlakari right and then he murdered most people in the strasser wing.
Whoa so they did a bunch of socialist policies. They screamed about socializing the people into a volsgezmein but because they weren't your type of socialist they had no influence from socialism? Right. You even said the Nazi version of socialism then claim it wasn't socialism at all. Ok you are the real socialist and these were heretic socialists. Got it.
Calling the national-socialists "socialists" is like calling anarcho-capitalists "anarchists"
you really need to understand language. socialist means socialist, saying another strain of socialism is not socialism is incredibly stupid just like the failed oxymoron argument. they ultimately believe in the same things... "all power to the state" and regulated economies, anti capitalism. amongst others like planned parenthood.
@@createspaceone But Nazism is not a "strain" of Socialism in any way, shape or form. They literally adopted the name for publicity. Socialists do not believe in "all power to the state", all economies are regulated in one way or another (even the most capitalist countries), Nazis believed in capitalism and private property, and planned parenthood is an organization born in the USA, not a policy.
@@createspaceone
Well, yeah, arguing over definitions is for transphobes, but if you look at any socialist thinkers and philosophies non of it fits with nazi ideology except for the vague “government does stuff”.
If that’s your definition of socialism that basically every government in history is socialist.
@@createspaceone
Though you are correct that, as the video says, the nazis were not capitalist.
Correct. Anarcho Capitalists are anarchist so nazis are socialists.
"Is educating people left-wing? I don't know, you tell me."
Top 10 brutal anime deaths
@Matthew Stewart what? so if anything has systematic orders it is socialism? so... that means every ai is a socialist.
@Matthew Stewart i was commenting the syllogism fallacy i see here and also as a additon to it showed the comments lacking definition of system and weird conclusion of system here as reductive and downright. presumptious. beacuse it assumes without proving that education becomes left leaning beacuse of its system, rather then by acknowledging the possibility that people aquiring alot of knowledge becomes left leaning due to their knowledge or by the mentality that comes becuse of aquiring alot of knowledge. (or by studying alot, whatever term you wanna use for the activites concerning those considerd educated)
socialist to set up a system? every political ideologi is the idea of setting up a system of the distribution of power. even if education was so anarchistic to say "read whatever" that in its self is a system of education. you even use "mentorship system" a SYSTEM. also, alexander the great? taught under aristoteles, who himself was taught under platos school, or "academy" and aristoteles open a school himself beacuse of the recommendation of alexander. so your great general also liked systems, his mentor taught under a system.
system isnt bad or political, it is just a descriptive word, not a euphemism for socialist or do you say you think alexander the great was a socialist?
and before you say "i said systemic instruction not systems" setting up a system is instructing on how something should work so "systemic instruction" is just redundant use of words or in this case framing it as pedantic, "too controling", as "socialism"
since you are suggesting i am reasoning here why that suggestion does not work. or why considering "systems" belongs to a specific party shows more personal opinion of said word rather than it being politcal partisan. althought systems can be biased but that is then the construction of said system to be so rather than the existance of a system. so what you should argue is that the educational system of whatever country you are using as template is socialistic, not that a system exist therefore it is socialistic.
edit: if you mean system in its more socialily used meaning rarther than the definitial use of the word, remember internet around the globe. the social use of a word is more situational and therefore easily to misinteprate. especially where there isnt a defined group. specify it if so.
@Matthew Stewart so you dont respect me, and calls me a conformist when you cant read the comment pointing out your lack of nuance. i was trying to point out how limiting your comparison was and that you should consider other possibilties, they were not suggestions to a point. but if this is the road you wanna go down, then tread it alone, i do not join insult wars. they bring nothing to fruition i care for.
No educating people is not left-wing, but indoctrinating people sure is. Spreading hate is in US of America very left-wing.
Indoctrinating people is left wing.
Welcome to the era of pseudo-intellectualism, where anyone and everyone is a reputable authority on any subject.
@@nuck- and get speak well?
@@nuck- hahah anti-science. We have a president who think Climate change is a hoax. Something agree by 100% Scientist but who the hell care.
Well this is why I dont believe anyone talking politics on the internet. If anything I dont like these response videos. Nothing to learn from them because you already knew Crowder is wrong.
@MajorLeague
"I know only one thing, that I know nothing"
This is true. Only once you recognize you're ignorance can you learn.
@MajorLeague
What are you on about?
I'm just pointing out that those who need to claim that they are wise are the most foolish
Wisdom lies in understanding how little you know
"Saying Hitler was a liberal socialist is already a hot take because it's an oxymoron..."
Love the little comments like these you sometimes say, always find them funny
At which part did Crowder say that?
*”Socialism is the science of dealing with the weal. Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take socialism away from the socialists.*
*Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Or German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.”* -ADOLF HITLER
*Hitlers Zweites Buch* - Author, ADOLF HITLER.
*Page 50. “I am a socialist.”*
@@eldritchedward1:10
This is a debate still happening in Brazil. A good ammount of people here think Nazism is a leftist ideology.
@trainbomb Yes, it's the Christian fundamentalists.
D'souza's "Death of a Nation," a "documentary" whose title references a silent film in which the KKK rides in to save the day from the evil of black rights...
My dog is barking ravenously right now.
>Is educating people left wing?
I know this is a ironic/rhethoric question but at this point...
anti-intellectualism has been a big thing in the far right for a long time.
Extreme ideologues of all stripes like their easy answers. Learning slowly teaches you that easy answers don't exist. That is as great a threat to the ideologue as their strawmen and scapegoats... therefore it must be one of the conspiratorial tools to harm the one true ideology.
@A piece of fucking sliced white bread! MFW people actually think this is true.
@A piece of fucking sliced white bread! Try spelling the word intellectual again please, the irony!
"Some ideas are so stupid only an intelectual could believe them" is a quote that idiots use to justify why experts in a field think they're fucking morons
I'd like to tell all the righturds that think nazism is leftist ideology, to approach a neonazi gang and call them communists.
I'll make sure to send your families my respects.
It's to the point that they cannot tell an elephant from a mouse. We are authoritative in nature but that does not make us the same. It's almost like a war was started over the difference in ideology but I cant put my finger on it
@MajorLeague Nazism and fascism are fundamentally corporatist ideologies.
@@thevisitor135 we would argue against fascism being corporatism in its purest on paper form but in practice yeah Italy and nazi Germany made quite a few people rich
It’s neither right nor left. It embodies elements of both. Why is that so hard to swallow?
@@johnsinclair6170 Yeah, that's basically corporatism, which is a third-positionist alternative to socialism and free-market capitalism and has been utilized by regimes ranging from Juan Perón in Argentina and Benito Mussolini in Italy to Francisco Franco Bahamonde in Spain and even Franklin Delano Roosevelt during his New Deal in America.
Thank you for this video. Every time I see someone arguing that Hitler was a socialist I can feel my braincells commiting suicide. It just hurts so much...
*”Socialism is the science of dealing with the weal. Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take socialism away from the socialists.*
*Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Or German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.”* -ADOLF HITLER
*Hitlers Zweites Buch* - Author, ADOLF HITLER.
*Page 50. “I am a socialist.”*
Hitler told Otto Wagener: ‘What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.’ He told Hermann Rauschning: ‘I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit.’ He added: “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it.’Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’
‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…
it hurts 'cause you refuse to look at the evidence, you have your identity in the game.
I've been waiting for somebody to make this video for like 2 years. Thank you.
Jacob Klemmer It's a short one but ReichWingWatch made one about this too.
The more I listen to other viewpoints, the more I want to step away from the echo chamber of conservative viewpoints I put myself in. I appreitiate your work.
@MajorLeague
Plz explain or cite some sources with these claims.... This guy went out his way to explain and pull sources and you denounce it as fallacy (which type?) and propaganda and then push your own propaganda... Perfect
@MajorLeague
You know you are reading a BS comment when he doesn't even try to read what he links (or understand the video, idk):
" I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists."
He is inventing his own definition of socialism, something this video addresses already.
Congratulations, you have proved yourself to be near Crowder level logic: "It's in the name, duh"
@MajorLeague
"Socialism is defined as the collective control of the means of production and ownership of property."
Yeah, probably most forms of socialism. So?
"You characterize Hitler's statement as a redefinition, which it is not."
You can't just start calling yourself an atheist and keep going to church.
"It is a speciation of national socialism from marxism."
It has nothing to do with marxism. It does not follow its objectives, it does not use its methods, it only appropriates some of its _rhetoric_. In other words, it uses some words.
"If your analysis is not full of shit,"
Not even an analysis, I just pointed out your laziness and incoherence.
"maybe you can point out how socialism is necessarily internationalist"
Are you confusing communism with socialism? Communism, the stateless society, is international both by definition, because no state implies no borders, and because of necessity, to survive.
Socialism doesn't really imply internationalism in all definitions.
"or what else disqualifies naziism from socialism based on this quote or otherwise. "
Literally? On a video that already answers this same point? And of which you didn't care to raise a single counter argument?
Why don't _you_ start justifying your point, seeing as that would save everybody a lot of time and wasted effort?
"This video is wholly inept"
This video produced a lot of arguments, while you are just trying to convince people to take Hitler's word...
"and does not address the body of works attributable to Hitler on this topic, including that which I have provided."
You are just taking his word at face value. He says he's socialist so he must be one. That's all you're doing.
If that's your way of dealing with this kind of complex issues, I don't expect you'll do too well. I really encourage you to try and read beyond what people just tell you, specially in the case of "controversial" figures like, you know, Adolf Hitler?
" why it is clearly propaganda functioning to make a case rather than present objective information."
You think this is propaganda. Let me guess, you'd rather believe Crowder? Because he's not propaganda, not like this commie. He does present all the objective information, because God is watching him, so he can't lie.
Come on man, watch the video again, it's full of big words, it's long, it doesn't have any anime girls, but put the effort, watch it as many times as necessary. Then tell me the parts that seem wrong to you, maybe we can work it out together. Time stamps appreciated.
MajorLeague how does it imploy fallacy and even if it does how do any of these other people he mentions not do the same thing to prove their own point
@MajorLeague
"The video is a designed piece of misinformation."
Still waiting for you to justify that. You keep repeating stuff as if that would make it true.
"I don't indulge in getting my info from videos like you do, so I have no preference for crowder or any sources other than..."
Lol, yeah, if I indulged you into citing my formation, you'd also dismiss me with ad hominems, so not giving you that.
"... the first source material I present."
You are just quoting Hitler. That's it. You are not analyzing what does it even mean what he says. You just go by the book, you are plain and simply put, just basic and literal. You think of it as a virtue, too bad for you.
"The purpose of raising the definition of socialism is to show that you are full of shit when you claim that what you quoted is a redefinition. You can't provide any evidence to support your insults to me and your inane case that naziism isn't socialism."
Blah blah blah.
"The criticism you quoted of Hitler's was specifically of marxism, but you wouldn't know that since you are being exposed to it for the first time."
Assuming a little? Is this a debate about me or the video? Are you going to keep running in circles?
"You're a sophmoric ignoramus, so you have to come out incorrectly by brand."
Ok, to the point please...
"You have avoided pointing out how Hitler's redefined socialism in any fundamental way based on the definition we agree on."
It's self evident. He disregards completely every of the founders of socialism, including Marx, and uses the name for something completely different.
From that point on, you just have two choices:
A- you only take seriously all the other definitions, and use a different name for nazism
B- you accept his use of the word against any logic, and debilitate the meaning of the word, to the point that anything, even Hitler's ideas can be socialist.
"You can't. Hitler's rhetoric was not empty,"
Look dude, your daddy Adolf had strong competition in the market of ideas, so he branded himself to sound catchy. You know, to appeal to literal, linear unidimensional minded people like you.
"unless you're one of the holocaust denial fucks in addition to denying this truth about socialism."
Oh shit, you found out the plot, I can't hide it anymore. We are the socialist nazis, we are both controlled by the jews and also trying to kill them, and it's all in an attempt to exterminate the white christian race.
"Being authoritarian made it so there was no need to stir political support with empty rhetoric nor any due process obstacles to face in rolling out their agenda... Their explicitly and objectively socialist agenda."
What the fuck dude? Their socialist agenda? What would that agenda be?
Is it the same agenda about gay rights that Kermit Peterson talks about?
Is the agenda of selling children to catholic pedophiles? You lost me.
You sound deluded and ignorant. And YOU KEEP AVOIDING THE CENTRAL ISSUE: __what part of the video you disagree with__?!
Fuck, man, you are really something
This is amazing work, one or your best!
Dawww two great youtubers getting along
The sectarian left should unite.
Big Joel eyy, it’s Big ‘ol Joel!
Worth the wait
If “one of his best” is a video that is INCORRECT on almost everything he said then that is pretty pathetic. This video is wrong and you are too dumb to recognize it.
I try not to make sweeping generalizations, but: if a person likes Crowder... I am forced to assume they are not a serious person, and are easily swayed by bluster. Doubly so, if they like Shapiro, too.
Watching Ben Shapiro make that statement about the Marxism in Mein Kampf made me want to throw a copy of it at his face while shouting “Can you read?!?!?” Obvious intentional misrepresentation.
He can read, but he is a wannabe fascist.
I think you can scratch the wannabe part, that would be an acurate representation of who he is, plus he's a moron so maybe you can work that in his title somehow ; )
Not sure about the moron, he says moronic things because he wants fascism, and wants to defend it.
I read mein Kampf at 10 and you're going to have to torture the 10 year old me to force me to believe that it has a Marxist agenda😂🤣 it's right wing authoritarian agenda. Nothing else. Though the bit about Hitler's childhood is a good read though.
@@Carewolf saying "ben Shapiro is fascist" is just as ridiculous as "Hitler was socialist."
Long answer : This Video
Short answer : *NO*
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Well... Hitler was proponent of big government and was essentially a collectivist and statist and so are socialists. I don't see much difference - fundamentally. But maybe someone here will enlighten me.
@@kruczyzmora2885
Thank you for being open minded about this.
Now, authoritarian governments are not an inherently socialist thing, despite what many americans believe. Socialism just requires collective ownership of industry, meaning everybody in a workplace is considered an owner of that workplace, unlike in capitalism where workplaces are owned and controlled by only a few bosses or shareholders. This doesn't require a strong state necessarily. There are in fact many socialists that identify as libertarians or anarchists, or who want a free market to distribute goods instead of a central govt body.
Some famous anti-authoritarian socialists include Noam Chomsky, Peter Kroptkin, Rosa Luxembourg and Nestor Makhno.
I wanted to clear this up. Being pro-authority doesn't mean you're pro-socialism, and vice versa.
If that were the case, chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet would be a socialist, and he was an outspoken anti-communist who shaped his countries after neoliberal super-capitalist principles.
Hitler also had a lot of negative things to say about the economics of the left in his book "Mein Kampf". Chapter 2 was literally about how marxism, the economic framework that birthed socialism, is a jewish plot to destroy the world and ignores fundamental parts of humanity.
In the same chapter he talked about how social democrats are manipulative crooks with an ideology not grounded in reality.
And as this video explained, the nazis did have a bunch of socialists in their party before they came to power, but they were purged in the "night of the long knifes".
The nazis were opposed to socialism AND the free market, since they thought both were a threat to their nationalist culture, so what they settled on was an authoritarian state capitalist/corporatist economy.
The other vids by this youtuber explained that a bit further.
The nazis were not socialist just because they were authoritarians, or because they had "socialist" in their name. That was merely a misnomer.
I think it's very good people like you are willing to learn.
Thank you for listening. 👍🏼
@@frocco7125 It was kind of you to answer this person but sadly it looks like he/she was not really into a long and lenghty argument. Do know that I liked your response.
You got a (red) star for kindness
Short answer: Nazis were socialist/communist with some capitalism sprinkled in.
Never trust anyone who does PragerU videos. That's a good rule of thumb.
Why, Prager too Jewish for you?
Steampunk Papercut PragerU is an idiotic conspiracy based theory channel and many of the videos don’t have reliable sources
Steampunk Papercut: Oh no, you’ve got us there!
@@soldierofkazus
PragerU is PropagandaU
@MajorLeague "Everything i disagree with is propaganda!111!" good shit, dumbfuck. By the way, nice fallacy fallacy.
Gotta say, as a brazillian, I'm very happy to see Three Arrows often using the Brazillian Military Dicatorship as an example of right-wing dictatorship. The world (many brazillians included) seem to forget the awful dictatorships enacted in Latin America during the Cold War.
Saying that nazis are the same as communists because they seized and redistributed property is like saying that murderers are the same as chef's because they use knives
Speaking as a vegan, that comparison doesn't work
@@WickedKnightAlbel carrots are living beings too
Speaking as a human, that analogy is terrible.
@@Statalyzer I mean, you're not wrong; not all murderers use knives.
The overall point stands, though. Nazi 'seizing and redistribution" of property was quite different from what Marx proposed. For starters, until Germany entered full war economy, basically of property seizing was from undesirables: Jews, Communists, Slavs, dissidents. The average German businessmen were allowed to keep their companies, as long as they didn't explicitly oppose the NSDAP. Compare that to the actual seizing of the means of production proposed by Marx and implemented by the likes of Lenin, Stalin and Mao in their own dictatorships, and there is a very noticeable difference.
@MajorLeague Did you even watch the video? Nazis were emphatically NOT socialist
I'll save you some time on the reach, the people did not have collective ownership of the means of production under the nazis so the nazis could not have possibly been a socialist party no matter what they called themselves
Some people were even removed from the party for being too socailist
I've found the idea of democracy and republic not being mutually exclusive (and not even concerning the same matter) to be absolutely baffling to several American friends. They will argue until they're blue in the face that America is a republic and therefore cannot be a democracy, no matter how many times or how patiently I try and point out the obvious. Maybe something to do with what they're taught in school? I dunno. It seems to be an almost sacred mantra to some.
I have to say I don't think people are going to stop repeating the "BUT SOCIALIST IS IN THE NAME" gotcha anytime soon, but the dive into the history of factionalism and ideological conflict within the NSDAP is really intriguing as we hear pretty much nothing about that outside of Germany, let alone outside of Europe.
the 'usa are a republic, not a democracy' is a super weird talking point, for two reasons:
1) it uses republic in a way nobody except people arguing this point are, and
2) by this defintion there are no democracies in the world, only republics.
so in the end, it is a meaningless statement because it differentiates between two things of which only one exists and is grossly misleading for 80% of the world.
(also i suspect this is pro-american propaganda teached in schools: look how good the usa are with our freedom unlike those pesky europeans hahaha )
Well technically most countries are constitutional democratic republics. There aren’t actually any true democracies in the world, because there’s no country in which a vote for every issue is made.
I've had people argue that North Korea is truly a people's democratic republic... just so that they could fall back on "It's in the name!!!1!" arguments when it comes to Nazis. I repeat, they defended the idea that North Korea is democratic, that it's a republic, and that it's governed by its people, because to do otherwise would undermine their only argument for claiming that Nazis are left wing.
Meanwhile Nazis marched in the US under the title "Unite The Right"... but what do I know?
Maybe they think that because the two party system of democrats vs republicans?
republics aren't democracies tho', that's like the one thing crowder gets right
but then he wants to make the point that the majority would always overule the minority in that situation, which is like, no. Nooo.
I can't decide if Crowder and Shapiro et al are ignorant or malicious. Nor can I figure out if it makes a difference.
I'd say It's a combination of both but leaning towards malice because their aim is to spread misinformation in order to keep the Republican base ignorant to the truth.
They're partisan hacks who act in incredibly intellectually dishonest ways because the real point is to help their side win. I mean, Shapiro even hates the Beatles because…communism or something.
@@cjaquilino he hates the Beatles sheesh I knew he was heartless, I didnt realize he was soulless as well.
Either way, it's terrible.
Malicious. They deliberately use "eristic dialectics", i.e. bad faith arguments that nevertheless appear persuasive.
“Is educating people left wing?”
Well it sure as shit isn’t being embraced by the right
No, it's just that the left wing has morphed education into brainwashing
Certainly not evidenced in your vocabulary. Good point.
@@disgusted3191there is a huge difference between something extremely minor & inconsequential like someone’s vocabulary (which isn’t a problem in this person’s comment at all) & the way right wingers embrace anti-intellectualism like their second religion. The latter is actually harmful to society & comes from an abysmal stupidity inherent in right wing politics
"North Korea is a democracy because it's actually called Democratic People's Republic of Korea"
-conservative logician
Be careful... Donnie Drumpf wants to build a relationship with North Korea! They might decide your absurdism isnt very absurd.
North korea is a democracy though
It's really not...
Ha! that exactly what I think of the left in the USA "left"
Chris G "If you're against Antifa you're a fascist." -Liberal progressive logician
Stephen Crowder doesn't know his left from his right.
Crowder doesn't know anything except how to make the most annoying voice of all time lol.
Yarwun He probably gets really upset in the morning when he tries to put on his shoes.
@@theoneandonlymichaelmccormickCroward is really dumb and ignorant as he looks. He was watching croward try is hand at comedy he has very dry sense of humor just like ever right wing comedian.
Maybe he's a *really* late bloomer
Mad 1976 If you think that Crowder of all people has a dry sense of humor, than you don’t know what that actually means.
Right wing: Nationalism is individualism for countries, and it worked for the nazis because x
Also right wing: The Nazis aren't really nationalist...
You are right, the nazi are anti nationalist. People saying they are nationalist just show they are complet ignorant. (or Hitler's junger of our days)
@MajorLeague Wow, your cognitive dissonance is unbearable. You are so drowned in revisionism bullshit. Poor little worm.
Japan is also nationalistic then
@MajorLeague You are not just wrong. You are wrong at every conceivable level of resolution. And zooming in on any part of your worldview reveals beliefs exactly as wrong as your entire worldview.
@MajorLeague r/woosh. Someone didn't get the joke here, obviously.
“Being flat out wrong mixed with smugness” is American right wing politics in a nutshell.
in general the politics in america are fucked; both sides are spewing bs to get points they over exaggerate points to the point where no one can be even trusted at the end politics is just rich people lying to us
And being flat out wrong mixed with stupidity is the left wing politics in a nutshell.
@@idenree8606 being uncreative, right wing insults in a nutshell.
@@cuber3603 being an annoying bunch of screamy kids , left wing in a nutshell.
Is that good for you or do you think I can do better ?
@Pp fopaexcept that they're not you moron, an annoying screamy kid is the stereotypical left winger not the right winger, you moron , like you , you repeated the same thing without adding anything new , just like a child.
And also , collecting my internet points ?
"ever since Santa and his elf came along and gave the kids class consciousness"
Best line in the vid
For the record, the USA is a democracy. And a republic. The terms "democracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive.
Most western countries are democratic republics. The only exceptions are those that are constitutional monarchies.
I think this need of the right-wing to demonize the term democracy is because "majority rule" is not compatible with "rule by the 1%" (through money in politics and campaign donations).
Well, to be fair, when's the last time the majority actually had their way in America?
The republic vs democracy is an old lump of stupid US derp which I think was started by the NRA years ago. Every now and again some dumb fuck right wing slimeball repeats it.
"Democracy by definition equals mob rule!"
NUCLEAR FACE PALM
Where did you get that? What kind of weird school text books are people reading in America.?
*a representative "democracy" which isn't real democracy*
Why not? A democracy is a rule "by the people". In theory, a typical modern representative republic is governed by the people in that they have (limited and well defined) control over the people in power. How is it not "real"?
You might just as well say a constitutional monarchy isn't a "real" monarchy.
Everybody who uses this argument has lost all credibility in an instant
Hitlers German controlled the means of production. There were no real private businesses, only in name. They could not set a sales price, they could not choose what is paid in dividends, they were told how much to produce and how to redistribute etc.. Big Gov does those sorts of things. The entire Left is unfortunately uneducated in real history mostly perhaps because Hippies became professors to spread their ideology in College and it carried on from there.
Sorry, no way around it, Hitlers Germany controlled the means of production, therefore, they were SOCIALISTS - NOTHING can get around that FACT.
@@WingThaiJ Wrong. There was private business.
In the USA the state also heavily controlled industry, its war time...
Does that make the USA a Socialist state?
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 No your wrong, they were private in name only. How the hell don't you know that. They couldn't set prices, they couldn't set pay, the were told what they could and could not do, they distributed in accord with the Gov, they did nothing of their own accord. In the end the Gov itself called all the shots and the owners were relegated to Gov pensions. You're looking at revisionist history Sorry YOU are wrong
@@WingThaiJ Because the book shop and the show repair shop was still privately owned and managed
@@WingThaiJ Its war, UK also set prices.
Does that make them Socialists?
When the video started with a sigh i started laughing, like the fact that you even need to make a video like this is ridiculous because these people exist
Great channel btw
i know its pathetic.
The historical definition of Socialism is "Seizing the means of production"
And thats exactly what the Nazis did, idk why ya all try to say "no their not Socialist!!!!".
The Nazis didnt privitised the german economy, the Nazis nationalised the trade unions into 1 trade union, the DAF (Deutsche Arbeiter Front, German Workers Front), the same thing Lenin did in Russia....
Stephen Crowder has a face for Radio, and a voice for silent film. Change my mind.
You missed an opportunity to end your statement with "Change my mind"
His voice is pretty grating.
I'm one to talk because I have two lisps (th instead of s sounds and w instead of r sounds) and a stutter and a wheezy voice crack and a mumble all at once, but at least that makes me think about what I say.
Right wing youtube: The left calls everyone nazis
Right wing youtube: The left are nazis
Right wing youtube: Today I'm bringing on my good friend of mine, he's got some good ideas that I want to share, he's an ethnonationalist and a good christian race realist, a real truer he is.
The friend:Ja ze Nazi germany was ein wünderbar nation
Can I translate this to Portuguese? I'd gladly do it if you had it in written form. Brazil is in dire need to be educated about fascism.
Yeah thats really bad.
I can translate a small part if you want
33:53 "sim, Hitler foi definitivamente influenciado por Marx"
Stop this bullshit of always accusing the other side and NEVER look to your own side! There is no such a thing as "educate" if you only tell what's convenient
If you need help just tell me. This video had Bolsonaro written all over it. We need to improve education asap.
"state control of institutions and authoritarianism"
First, where do you think those institutions come from? The State has always controlled them, the State is made of those institutions. Democratic Socialism just gives the public means of production FOR those institutions through democratic vote. Don't lump authoritarianism in there just because history shows us that socialistic societies can produce fascism. Capitalism does this also!
However, the way the Left has operated in the current system is on occasion equally if not more deplorable than behavior of the right particularly in US politics (Not sure about Brazil). But the idea of "brainwashing combined with weak minds" producing socialism is arrogant and reductive and equally ignorant of the history of BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
Well this will be a difficult conversation to have considering we have completely different definitions of certain concepts. I'll start here as it seems to be a big point of discourse: Hate speech is real. Revoking the platform of someone with antiquated and violent ideology, while it is globalist and leftist, is not violent intrinsically, as is the hate speech itself. But I'll give it to you, the examples you cited are violent on the part of the UK and Germany, and that is something those sovereign nations must tackle, though i really don't blame them for making such decisions, especially considering Germany's past. England will probably end up using their surveillance system to get rid of all the people of colour anyway, who are we kidding? But private entities such as Google, Facebook, Twitter can act as they wish, they don't set a precedent for other businesses. The government didn't mandate that decision, those corporations did. Besides, there are plenty of conservative platforms that block and curate liberal speech to their own agenda. Is that fascist behavior? To me that's people pursuing capitalist gain by appealing to the confirmation bias that most people have regarding their political beliefs.
As for private corporations becoming federalized, it doesn't seem that private enterprise or free market must be sacrificed in order to make certain voted-for institutions socialized. It doesn't have to be all in, where ALL private enterprise is socialized. And the state should be wary of dangerous ideological organizations, but that's not to say that anyone who is a Nazi sympathizer should be legally punished for holding such beliefs, regardless of the fact I personally believe they should.
As for Socialism itself, saying that it will fail on ideology alone is pure speculation on your part, and while you do have history on your side, it's impossible to prove that socialist policy as an exclusive abstract concept is a direct cause for fascism. Capitalism has facilitated violent fascists as well my friend, regardless of what they call themselves. Look at the civil war that the US is funding and perpetuating in Yemen by proxy of funding Saudi Arabia, all due to nuanced trade policy regarding arms and oil and a capitalist agenda that puts product and monetary value over human life. And to be honest, No, people can't control themselves. I don't trust you to do the right thing no more than you trust me to do the right thing. Regardless, we all have a base set of needs (food, clothing, shelter) that can be met through social organization of federal funds and institutions, and denying those things to everyone just because you can "do it yourself" is selfish to those who cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps due to a vast array of reasons. And just because people have used similar Socialist institutions to assume authoritarian regimes doesn't mean that the ideas themselves were flawed. We can have it both ways! We can keep microbreweries and fucking McDonalds and still give people healthcare and a good education! You're making it an all or nothing thing, and that is the ESSENTIAL difference between Absolute Socialism and Democratic Socialism. Most all historical socialist turned into fascism because the public wasn't involved aside from throwing full political support TO a fascist, or there was heavy conspiratorial prejudice on the part of the States that implemented such policies.
And holding those beliefs doesn't make me a sheep that's sucking on the teat of big government, and it doesn't make me a fascist sympathizer just because fascists have used socialism to gain authoritarianism. It makes me someone who sees that there is already an incredible gap between how much wealth is accumulated by society and the people who are actually benefiting from that wealth. I can see the potential in the system that exists because it does have good bones, but people have to organize and take control of it. It has always been for the purpose of serving those who hold the power, and it always will until the bridge is built between government spending and the people it is being spent on. Democratically elected social spending could be a way to bridge that gap! Also unions working with those institutions to forge policy that benefits those groups idk just throwing things out there
Hitler was never a socialist. Most people invariably think of Marxist socialism when they think of "socialism" because that's all they know. But Hitler was famous for using terms with a completely different meaning, and the reason was exactly to make it confusing. And one last thing, in the beginning of this you state that the greatest minds of today are working on this question of whether Hitler was a socialist or not. That is also completely false. The greatest minds of today are not working on this question because they already know the answer. There is absolutely nothing to work on with this question. In history it is crystal clear. It always has been clear. Hitler was never a socialist, never a Marxist, never a leftist. Hitler was always a conservative, Volkisch, extreme right-wing activist.
Exactly. Hitler wasn't a socialist. He was a German nationalist and a fascist. If he was a leftist or a socialist, he wouldn't have invaded the USSR
The greatest minds thing is meant to be a joke because Crowder, Shapiro and Dsouza are far from great minds
Being a volkisch was not being a part of socialism? What do you think socialism is? Just because you don't like his brand of socialism doesn't mean he wasn't one. I don't like Pinochet's brand of capitalism with an authoritarian government, I don't say he didn't support a capitalist system though. Ironically, it was capitalism that gave the people the power to get rid of his Junta. The bottom up approach will eventually erode and destroy the top down authoritarianism.
Bro the thing about the greatest minds was a joke 💀
@@johnweatherby8718. No, being folkish is not Marxist socialism. Hitler created his own, non-Marxist, form of socialism that he called "Front Socialism" and that he later elaborated on as being folkish or as Hitler explained it, everything about National Socialism is about race or the Volk, or in other words, Social Darwinist.
Right winger: "Facts don't care about your feelings."
Left Winger slams countless volumes of history, science, and philosophy on the desk. "Yep."
@Matthew Stewart Well, you could just watch this video for a truckload of them.
and yet they think socialism works? history? "gender is a spectrum"? science? i wont go into philosophy.
@@originalmaxie8678
1. Depends on what kind and branch of socialism your talking about since their are many forms of socialism that differ from each other; it isn't a homogeneous monolith.
2. Historical fact has an innate left wing bias
3. Gender is in fact a spectrum because gender refers to the sociological, behavioral and cultural characteristics associated with but distinct from each biological sex.Gender, typically described in terms of masculinity and femininity, is a social construction that varies across different cultures and over time. There are a number of cultures, for example, in which greater gender diversity exists and sex and gender are not always neatly divided along binary lines such as male and female or homosexual and heterosexual.
4. For Science: please refer back to counter point #2.
5. Political left wing philosophy seems to be flatly, both in it's face and in practice: to be much better and beneficial to the betterment of mankind. Right wing philosophy only perpetuates the cycles of hatred, violence and pain of humanity.
@@brano13177 The left wing philosophy is to make big promises that better everyone in the world except the u.s, fuck the u.s hard, and then blame the right for why we are in debt while we funnel money to fund non u.s citizens to live here. Guess what in a number of cultures they also killed the people who had those mental disabilities of fucking the same gender. notice i say gender because it is not a spectrum. there are only disabilities, male and female.
Well, the problem is that the more volumes you read, the lesser is your certainty in your opinion. Usually people who are really well educated avoid from discussions on subjects, which they don't know well enough. And as the "right" and "left" belief systems usually contain a lot of unrelated and unprovable ideas, only an extremely biased person can use selected according to ideological preferences historical examples to prove anything related to future based on simple analogies.
The amount of mental gymnastics by alt-right to paint themselves righteous never cease to amuse me.
@@Swift-mr5zi Cool story bot.
How can you call someone a bot and not respond to their points whatsoever...... it’s so moronic it actually hurts.
@@rubofmcjubalob8288 If a person is writing a book, in response to 1 sentence. There is clearly something wrong with that person.
@@rubofmcjubalob8288 Cause it's pointless jargon that only trolls use. Have you watched the video?
TwilightDream I can agree not all of that was required but he’s explaining his argument so to me it’s fine.
So for Shapiro : Stalin was a fascist and Hitler a socialist...
I have a feeling he is not very knowledgeable about History.
Both are facists.
@@Lycaon1765 Its a deliberate attempt of bad revisionism - they want to at least muddy the waters enough for the their alt-right, xnenophobic and racist agenda to appear more acceptable.
@@misium stalin persecuted Jews as well. That doesn't matter tho, both are facists.
@@Lycaon1765 You confuse totalitarianism with fascism.
Fascism is always totalitarian, but not all totalitarians are fascists.
@@MegaRBN14
Both stalin and Hitler were facists. :/
th-cam.com/video/cxOmaQx4BY4/w-d-xo.html
Stop trying to defend a murderer.
Crowder saying that America’s system protects the minority is already immediately disqualifying, not to mention... everything else.
It scares me how these people get away with spreading terrible misinformation like this..
The news get away with it all the time.
The cuckservatives or the Marxists?
Why don't you big brained lefty's ever debate the Alt Right publicly?
Free speech.
You can't begin trying to dictate what misinformation is, otherwise you will risk stepping onto people's rights. Your ability to say whatever you want is great, as is Steven's.
Start trying to control it and you really will become a fascist. Or a Stalinist if you like.
Black Sun Rising Because the left is wrong and they know it. They don’t care, they just want what they want even if they have to be dishonest to get it.
Is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (a.k.a. North Korea) democratic?
Is the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" democratic?
Just because people use a certain label for themselves or others does not make it true.
That's how we know "Antifa" isn't really anti-fascism.
"but it was in the name" - every conservative
"Anybody who doesn't support us is a Nazi."
--every Leftists on this page, apparently.
"or we, the poor have abolished unemployment because we no longer pay homage to this madness, because we regard our entire economic existence as a production problem and no longer as a capitalistic problem...."
"It is today no longer possible to build up a state on a capitalistic basis."
"Germany's economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people. I am not the slave of a few international banking syndicates. I am under no obligation to any capitalist group. I sprang from the German people. My Movement, our Movement, is a German people's Movement"
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adolf-hitler-speech-by-chancellor-hitler-to-the-nazi-party-in-munich-february-1941
"Even after the collapse of 1918 this bourgeois world had failed to realize that an old world was vanishing and a new one being born and that there is no use in supporting and thus artificially maintaining what has been found to be decayed and rotten, but that something healthy must be substituted for it. A social structure that had become obsolete had cracked and every attempt to maintain it was bound to fail."
(The collapse of capitalism is inevitable!? My goodness, where have I heard that before....)
"Thereupon Judaism began systematically to undermine our nation from within, and it found its best ally in those narrow-minded bourgeoisie who would not recognize that the era of a bourgeois world is ended and will never again return, that the epoch of unbridled economic liberalism has outlived itself and can only lead to its self-destruction and, above all, that the great tasks of our time can be mastered only under an authoritarian coordination of natural strength, based on the law of same rights for all and, thence, of same duties."
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adolf-hitler-broadcast-on-the-12th-anniversary-of-the-national-socialist-regime-january-1945
"Internally, in the "coalition" which we know only too well, they included all the enemies of the Reich, beginning with the Frankfurter Zeitung, and the entire stock market speculator-group..."
"I am calm therefore when I face any German who is fighting in the East, or who comes home on leave-and I can tell each one of them, just look at our organization. Compare our home cities, compare the workers' settlements which we are building, compare our social organization with what you have seen on the other side. Compare the fate and the lot of the German farmer with the lot of that Russian farmer. Compare all of that, my dear friend, and then give me your judgment as to who has managed things better, and above all else, who has had more honorable intentions?
Not one man has as yet returned, who could express any other opinion than that if a Socialistic State were in the process of being realized anywhere, it was in Germany only that it was actually taking place. That is still another reason why this other world which so willingly represents capitalistic interests in particular, is attacking us. It is a combine, which even today still pretends to be able to rule the world according to its private capitalistic interests, to manage it, and when necessary, to keep on ruling it."
"Then I was making pilgrimages up and down through the German countryside, from North to South and from East to West, and wore myself out, only in order to save my people from this misery, into which these rulers of international capitalism had forced it."
"Regarding the material values, however, I believe them; they do have a fine instinct for them. But we have it too. The only difference is that we want to make sure under all circumstances that the material values of Europe will in the future benefit the European peoples also, and not an extra-continental little international finance's clique-that is our unshakable and inexorable resolve. The people of Europe are not fighting afterwards so that a few people of fine instincts should again come along and begin to plunder mankind and make millions of unemployed, just in order to fill their vaults."
"Above all, however, they will be happy if they themselves get the benefit of the reward for this work, if their peoples benefit, if their working men and women benefit, and not a vault which is in the Bank of London, if you wish, or in New York. I believe therefore that at the end of this war there will be collapse of this domination of gold, externally also, and thereby the collapse of this whole society which is to blame for this war."
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adolf-hitler-speech-on-the-19th-anniversary-of-the-ldquo-beer-hall-putsch-rdquo-november-1942
"She (Mrs. Roosevelt)-declined to live with her sons in a world such as the one we have worked out. And quite right, for this is a world of labour and not of cheating and trafficking."
"the Anglo-Saxon-Jewish-Capitalist World"
"From all these actions, it may be clearly seen how, with all his hatred for Socialist Germany, he forms the resolution of taking over, as safely and securely as possible, the British Empire in the moment of its downfall."
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hitler-s-speech-declaring-war-against-the-united-states
"I, on the other hand, have been striving for twenty years with a minimum of intervention and without destroying our production, to arrive at a new Socialist order in Germany which not only eliminates unemployment but also permits the worker to receive an ever greater share of the fruits of his labor."
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adolf-hitler-declaration-of-war-on-the-soviet-union-june-1941
"It was also they who incited the ranks of the plutocracies to war, and it is the Jews who have driven America to war against all her own interests, simply and solely from the Jewish capitalistic point of view."
"On one side we find the exponents of democracy, that is Jewish capitalism with all its deadweight of obsolete political theories and parliamentary corruption, its out-moded social order, the Jewish brain trust, the Jewish newspapers, stock exchanges and banks, a concern of mixed political and economic profiteers of the worst order,"
"For the first time the Bolshevists were not only beaten by a government, but above all the Marxists were won over, won over for the reconstruction of a better and healthier order of society which does not see in the state the carrier of a protection for a certain stratum of society, but the supposition for the conservation of the life of all."
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adolf-hitler-speech-to-the-reichstag-assuming-new-power-april-1942
(Note his separation of "Bolshevists" and "Marxists." Hitler certainly hated the Bolsheviks, but as his generals agreed, he felt that Nazism was the "purer" socialism. Since the USSR's socialism resulted in more murders, rapes, and general misery, obviously their version of socialism was actually more pure--but nonetheless, Hitler took pains to make it clear that he was an opponent of the Bolsheviks and that he had no issues with socialism--much like other socialists who war with fellow socialists, do not become non-socialist or anti-socialist.)
(Amusingly enough, socialists are quite fond of reminding us that George Orwell, who accidentally wrote two of the most effective anti-socialist books ever, was a socialist--and yet Orwell viciously hated Russian Bolshevik socialism, declaring it to be an impure, corrupted version)
But wait--there's more!!
Nazi Germany even provided a 25-point program...
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race. (Emphasis mine)
25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.
AND they put "socialist" right there in the name.
@@kenabbott8585 when's the book report on your comment due? No but seriously. I'm not going to spend a half hour reading quotes from Adolf Hitler's speeches. Ofc he was trying to appeal to the common man. Ofc he wanted people to think he had the interests of the workers in mind. You know who else does that? Every person who has ever been in politics. Hitler was not a Socialist. In fact, he hated the ideas of both Communism and Socialism. He even organized bands of thugs to attack socialists in the streets. He had a shit load (idk the exact number but we'll say 1 shit load) of Communists killed and jailed. To say Adolf Hitler was a Socialist is just ludicrous. Btw, I don't support Antifa and I never said "anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi" you're putting words in my mouth.
AND you still didn't say whether or not the DPRK is democratic.
North Korea officially calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; therefore, it's a democratic republic. Makes sense.
as a german who didnt sleep in every history class, i couldnt believe someone could think hitler was socialist in any way
Ich hatte einen Kollegen, der mir das gesagt hatte. 😳 bzw, er meinte, Hitler wäre Kommunist gewesen.
In Ostdeutschland 😬
You don't need to avoid sleeping in history in the US, they just don't really teach this there it seems.
@@radschele1815 ossis sind manchmal echt crazy delusional xd
*”Socialism is the science of dealing with the weal. Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take socialism away from the socialists.*
*Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Or German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.”* -ADOLF HITLER
*Hitlers Zweites Buch* - Author, ADOLF HITLER.
*Page 50. “I am a socialist.”*
A German who didn’t sleep in history class huh? Guess you just weren’t smart enough to remember any of it then.
@@legitimatelypissedoff4409 ye cause we read hitlers books in history class xd. i do not define a persons believes after what they say but after what they do. you quoting this already implies a certain political perspective
“Hitler was a socialist, it was in his party’s name!”
Yes Steven, take hitler’s word for it. Says a lot about you.
Leo DB Crowder must be confused by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, then.
Wait??? He is still Alive???!!!!
Leave it to the Right to take Sophistry and kick it up to 11...
National socialism is socialism.
Right. Which is why the Nazis threw Socialists in jail...
Dude, I am simply floored by your level of patience. Putting in what must be hours of work to take down an argument that is so incredibly stupid as this. You just have to listen to what Crowder says to know he has no idea what he is talking about. I'm writing this while 15 minutes into the video so I don't know if it'll come up but Crowder never heard of the Führerprinzip and how it is drastically different from democracy in terms of distribution of power and responsibility (listen to what Göring has to say about this during the Nuremberg Trials) or that he thinks all socialism is marxist socialism. For the German right wing socialism did not mean class struggle or egalitarism but dissolving the individual to live and serve fully in society.
Same. I Can't hear crowder for more than 5 minutes... Thank god this video didn't push it more than that lol.
You're wasting your time throwing facts at people like Crowder. A perfect example of Dunning Kruger effect.
I agree. You won't talk sense into the main figures themselves.
But it think, many people can understand the facts through this who would otherwise have fallen prey to Steven Crowder and those others.
@Connor Beachler No, I don't hate him. I'm really more sorry for him and sad about the damage he does.
And that I am because he's delusional and spreads his delusions around.
@Connor Beachler This video. I honestly don't know much about Steven Crowder, he might be a great guy, but if he thinks the Nazis were left wing, then he's delusional, at least in that regard.
@Connor Beachler Have you even watched the video? This is one of the specific points that were debunked.
In short: 1. Names don't necessarily mean anything. Woodchucks don't chuck wood.
2. The Nazis saw *National*socialism as the antithesis to the "jewish-bolshewist socialism" of the soviet union - whose supporters in Germany were the left wing.
You see, the Nazis and the actual Socialists (and communists) were deadly enemies - which is also showcased by the fact, that the KPD (communist party) opposed the NSDAP most strongly of all parties and its members were the first group that the Nazis deported - long before the jews.
This is the short version, please watch the video before making any more claims that were debunked right above.
@Connor Beachler Please read my comment again. I said names don't _necessarily_ mean anything. Like in this case. Or in the case of the woodchucker.
And no, that assertion about the Nazis feelings towards the socialists is incorrect - as you would know, had you actually seen and understood the video. It features original texts by Nazis concerning the socialists and you will see that their feelings towards one another were really of a different order of magnitude.
Why would you even assert such things? Do you really think anyone believes you, when you claim that the Nazis made special efforts to suppress and kill their allies in the fight for socialism just for being ineffective while at the same time strengthening the conservatives who were against socialism? Do you even really believe that yourself? You must see how ridiculous those claims are.
I like how Crowders even misunderstands democracy and says it's "under mob rule," when actually it means rule by the people in greek and there are multiple variations of which. For example, the two things he says are separate aren't at all, like representative democracies (aka republics) and direct democracy (which he puts as the strict definition of democracy). You learn this in grade 7 social science.
Schools in the US need to do a better job teaching political terms. If people actually knew the definitions of socialism, nationalism, capitalism etc then they wouldn't be susceptible to political hacks like Crowder and Shapiro.
If schools did a better job at teaching history, they would see that white people did not start slavery, are one of the few races that ended slavery, Republicans had more civil rights advocates in office during the 60s, and Stalin and his far-leftist killed more people than Hitler.
We should also learn about FDR and LBJ's racism and Woodrow Wilson's racism
@@rmh941
@@snappycaster What was wrong about what I said?
@@rmh941 Take all the words you used, throw them in a blender. They make a worsearch out of them. Congratulations it makes more sense now.
"If you don't know who Dinesh D'Souza is..." then you are very lucky.
Yes, that person is truly blessed, I'm so jelly
Mate you watch the young turks. They are Just as terrible as he is.
He's The Modern Day Joseph Gerbals of The Right Wing Fringe!
LOL, 'Gerbals'.
Then I am very lucky.
20:41 the fact that Ben, a f*cking political science major, can say that Stalin's USSR was fascist is just embarrassing
Tbh, Stalins leadership had many fascist characteristics.
At least the person cult was existing.
But... the USSR was not a ethnic nationalistic driven state. (Fatherlandish war aside).
There is a seed of truth there. But propably not for the reason Shapiro thinks.
If teachers are watching, please use this in history/politics classes! Thanks Daniel, again wonderful work you did there.
Why? It's documented fact already in the history books.
@ If it's that well documented, then why do these false claims keep getting peddled? Anyways, I don't mean "tell kids in school, what the Nazis did and that they weren't leftist, but also show them how modern reactionaries and the far right argue, where they act basically the same as the Nazis did and how to spot dog-whistles. This video die more than present historical context and that is what's important imo, else the Nazis are just some horrible crazy dudes from the past and the danger of the ideology of fascists stays abstract until it's too late.