Fascism is not Right Wing: A Christian Historiographical Perspective (Enlightenment/World Wars p.13)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 жов 2024
- In this video, we examine the principles of Christian historiography in a response to comment criticisms of "Hitler was Liberal." We revisit the previous video and the atheistic philosophical premises of Nazism once again before examining the philosophical principles of Fascism.
This Channel helped me a lot, as someone who works in a cultural setting I can debunk everything (post)modern more easily. I reguraly explain to people that their behaviour is basically protestant, this especially helps with alphabet people
How do they respond to your explanation?
@@SergioBriMa in general good, I don't tell them I am outright Catholic, I just focuss on destroying their beliefs in commonly excepted narratives. I also have the idea that many liberals: social scientists/histories are held hostage by the far left, they would like to speak up but they can't because they are cowards or have to much to loose
Explain how alphabet people are protestant?
@@wilsontexas protestants are there own Pope with their own head canon, the have tond of Guilt no forgiveness, the woke are similar, also the constant dividing in sub devisions, very very protestant. Once you understand them as a religion/heresy everything becomes easier
@@SergioBriMa mostly ok, I have discovered that not attacking directly but having some alternative examples makes one think.
Yesterday I explained this to some friend who for reasons in doing a lot of music foe queer parties. He literally said I explained quite clear what people were doing and the causes. He coming from a background heavily protestant understood the link.
Absolutely great video! Only point that should be noted is that whilst Mussolini was an atheist in his youth, in his later years started a personal and sincere process of conversion. I ask everyone if someone has any good books to read on this subject, the enlightenment’s roots in fascism/nazism. Im especially interested on how the concept and role of the nation/state changed through time and the difference (often overlooked) between legitimate patriotism and excessive nationalism. Thanks!
There is no line you goofball, you were just lied to, there was no "excessive nationalism".
...expansionism is a nice concept to apply
i found this channel and really liked the "christian historic view" since i'm actually trying to create my own "christian science" regarding mental health since psychology and psychiatry do more harm than good. Keep it going
@@closegripbenchpress489 I wish you the best with that. My "How the West Became Godless" offers my two cents about the history of psychology.
Thats the problem though, a "christian" view, not a Catholic one, the man is just feeding you protestant nonsense and you are still in plato's cave.
The concept of right and left are enlightenment ideas.
The concept of 'right and left' comes from the enlightenment!? What!?
Guelphs and Ghibellines never existed then? What about Sulla's Civil war? All conflict between the Catholic Church from Gregory VII til the period of the Avignon Papacy and even then with the HRE where it was Papacy VS. Empire and conflict between the Church and the State within nations.
Factionalism has always existed and simple breakdown into two warring sides is just from simplicity. There is always an either/or, before and after, left and right. There is nothing in the Enlightenment about a two party, left and right, in any sense like what exists in the West today, which is never clearly defined or delineated. The modern origin is always claimed to be the Tennis Court at Versailles during the French Revolution when those on the Right favored the Royal state and monarchy and those on the Left were for the replacement of Royal State and monarchy with a new government.
However there was a kind of left right divide in Great Britain going back to the time of the English Civil war. So I really don't know on what basis you are making this claim?
This is my favorite Catholic channel. I have learned so much! A much needed wealth of information and thank you for sharing your gift!
Catholic? How?
Because he says he is? He denies Catholicism's standards for government, he spreads lies and propaganda to tarnish Catholic history, he is a protestant in catholic clothing.
Love the channel. Thank you for your work and providing a Catholic view of history.
Why is questioning the holocaust illegal in 22 european countries?
why do you think it was only triple parenthesis people. What about thr other 5 million goyim
Is this supposed to be a argument against the Holocaust? If so it’s not a good one. It’s probably the same reason those countries will throw you in jail for other forms of speech. They overemphasize this idea of hate speech and apply it to everything.
Because it'll expose the transformation between ethno nationalism to transnationalism of today. We're living under a transnationalist socialist/globalist socio-fascist regime and it's fruit are many including the woke cult(a form of Hegelian cultism). This means the wokesters historical counterparts are the Nazis.
Because denying genocide is part of the process
Because it scared people so bad that they wanted the exact opposite direction of Nazism. But the exact opposite of Nazism is not good either, as the Nazis were a mostly functional society but they just tried to commit murder on a national scale. So when you frame your society to distance yourself as far from the Nazis as possible, you get our current society.
I’ve always liked Moldbug’s “there is no such thing as the right wing in the modern world only less left”.
Peter thiel protege and member of the tribe Curtis Yarvin, yes, how brilliant.
moldbug is an "elder brother", a fake monarchist, and anti-catholic.
Exactly backwards but ok
Mussolini's description of Democracy and in particular Democracy in America is spot on. When Totalitarians point out your flaws you know it's not good.
Considering how different sides of WW2 were also ideologically liberal, and how ethnic Germans were abused and killed even if they were never a part of the war, I dislike the idea that evil was only coming from Axis powers. Ideological liberalism is connected to this treatment of human life for sure
Yes, the fate of the ethnic Germans was a sad one to say the least. About half of them were killed or disappeared and the other half was forced to flee or assimilate.
Yes both sides commit crimes against humanity
@@stephanottawa7890Well, the Germans did a lot of that to themselves, fighting to the very last man and all. It did not help that the Soviets were not thinking about mercy when they walked on German land. But as an eye for an eye, the Soviets did far less to the Germans than they suffered from them.
The Western Allies probably killed the most civilians in bombing raids, but there was never an active effort to hurt them. You seem to forget that at this time, the western Liberalism still had Christianity at its core, and was restrained by the Christian ethos, so the Liberals aren’t bad yet. It would only be after WW2, when all of the leftist elite of Europe (mostly Jews) were freed from their persecution, they moved to America and began doing the exact same thing as they did in Germany. This honestly feels like the only actual mastermind behind Liberalism is Satan because these elites don’t see how their actions caused their own suffering.
@@luigimrlgaming9484 I am sorry to say, but your interpretation of history is so bizarre in that you put all the peoples into blocks as if the entire nation was responsible for that actions of individuals. I cannot begin to comment as we think in a different manner. I do not see peoples as ideological blocks as you seem to. I think that the Christian way is to begin with the individual and move from there to the collective of the people or the nation and not the other way around.
@@stephanottawa7890 I don’t treat them as blocks, I treat them as individuals. But as a collective, this was the attitude of their societies at the time, and thus the attitude of their leaders.
I probably could’ve been more specific.
Love the channel man
Really appreciate this video.
I'd also like to add Multiculturalism is Aristotle's definition of Tyranny
Where did he write this?
Evil isn't defeated until Christ's second coming so it adapts. The fascists pivoted from ethno nationalism to transnationalism. We're living under a transnationalist socialist/globalist socio-fascist regime and its results are many including the secular religion known as the woke cult (a form of Hegelian cultism). This means the wokesters historical counterparts are the Nazis. A passive aggressive form of fascism. Evil to its core.
Yes I'd like to know also
@@austrianhistory I tried to respond a couple times with quotes but It keeps getting removed. read these two pages Aristotle, Politics, Book 5, section 1313b - 1314a
First Point the Finger to Cultural-Mixture that Destroyed the Natural Human Development that Lead to the Modern Multiculturalism we Know of Today.
you are obviously correct, I'm glad I can play guitar during your left right defense of category
33:10 Some may comment that Marx was Jewish, but he was baptized in what was at that time the only Protestant church in Trier, Germany. His father, who had converted to Protestantism, was sent to Trier as a government functionary because the Prussian government of the time favoured Protestants (even onces of Jewish origin) over RCs. Trier had been the domain of the Archbishop of Trier. With the invasion of Napoleon, he lost his status as a secular ruler, but kept his status as an archbishop. The Prussians were awarded the territory with the defeat of Napoleon. At first, the Protestants had no church. Therefore they took the former cathedra hall or basilica of Emperor Constantine and turned it into a church. That is where little Karl was baptized. I have been there and can attest that it is a beautiful church. It is just down the block from the RC Cathedral and Shrine of the Holy Tunic which are also worth visiting. Most of the population remained RC until modern times. The Protestant minority grew, but still is not that numerous in Trier today.
An even simpler definition, do you want to be a slave to the state or a slave to Christ?
Slave to Jesus Christ, who is the God-Man
@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 Yes, because to know God is to live, and to serve Him is to reign (words from the Postcommunion of the votive Mass for Peace)
Oh yes, let's all bow down to the God of Israel and his Jewish messiah. May the Kings and Queens of the nations cast down their crowns and bow before them and lick the dust of their feet! As it says in Isiah 49 vs. 23.
Slave to the State/Popery or slave to Christ.
@@1Whipperin slave to popery is being slave to Christ
This makes much more sense than the wikipedia definition.
and I personally dont buy what we have ben told about WW2 and the holocaust, way too many inconsistencies and way too eager to throw you in jail for questioning it
this. I really just don't know what to believe. The only thing I know for certain is that history is written by the victors and that the H-event is currently used to escape criticism, as is slavery.
@@bushy9780The question is why do they keep insisting their some seperate race of people when they are clearly European like myself. So it really pisses me off that they are the ones always pushing so much anti-white propaganda
@bushy9780 the minister of propaganda of israel in the 50 say that they will use that again anyone
ua-cam.com/video/NCrQcIpkR_Q/v-deo.htmlsi=fYTYQipVWBEnyAf0
ua-cam.com/video/NCrQcIpkR_Q/v-deo.htmlsi=fYTYQipVWBEnyAf0
ua-cam.com/video/NCrQcIpkR_Q/v-deo.htmlsi=fYTYQipVWBEnyAf0
This video can be summed up by-
>My definition of conservative is literally the Catholic Church.
>Mussolini's government & the NSDAP are not literally the Catholic Church.
>Therefore Liberals!
Exactly this. Catholics have a great intellectual history but at times it's way too reductive
To be fair, that what was meant to be conservative and second, what does liberalism, capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, right-wing libertarians, left-wing libertarians, progressives, national socialist, republicanism, etc. conserve but selfishness and nihilism.
Well, it does work in the context of western civilization, which was shaped by the Catholic Church for over 1000 years, and political Liberalism arose contesting that.
That is literally what the term right wing was created to describe yes. Those who sat in the right wing of parliament in the French Revolution supported monarchy and the Catholic Church.
this but unironically thoughbeit
Is UA-cam your full time job ??? I’m trying to read all of these books and you keep posting all of these well made video essays
@JosephStalin-cv5gf Hello Joseph Stalin, no it's not my full time job, but thanks!
This is a very interesting and fruitfull discussion with regard to Enlightenment as an important prerequisite of fascism. On the other hand the discussion whether or not "Hitler was a liberal" is just a waste of time. That is because the word "liberal" has completely lost its meaning. It may mean one thing and its exact opposite at the same time. Classical liberalism in its European sense is mainly defined by individualism and its opposition to corporatism (close to what`s called "libertarianism" in the US). What is called "liberal" in the US (and increasingly in Europe too) is almost exactly the opposite of classical liberalism. It is corporatist to the core.
Great points, agreed,
Thanks for great content
Dont let these possesed by liberalism get to you. Youre 100% right when viewing the kingdom of god
Fascism’s roots have always been in the trade unionist movement of the left. The divergence with communism begins with its focus on nationalism over international worker’s liberation. Fascist regimes only tolerated the Church to appease those uneasy over communism’s appeal to atheism, but this typically only lasted until a regime could take complete control of the state. The Spanish civil war provides a great example of this with Franco forcing the merger of political parties sympathetic to his cause to decrease the influence of the clergy on the right.
Yeah it was basically syndicalism in decay. instead of class warfare they wanted class collab and a mix of public and private oversight of the economy.
What's your thoughts on transnationalism socialism/globalist socio-fascism (Third Worldism) and its results including the secular religion known as woke cultism (a form of Hegelian cultism)?
@@ironinquisitor3656identity outside of class or identity equaled class was one of the main difference between fascism and communism which is based on economic class.
@@RlsIII-uz1kl Yeah that's basically what I mean in more complex terms here.
Wasn’t Franco Catholic? He didn’t seem like the other Fascists in his aggression. Of course his country was Fascist but I was under the impression it was essentially the last time Spain was ruled by a Catholic ruler until his death and succumbed to Liberalism.
Moldbug pointed this out as well, Liberalism, Socialism and Fascism are brothers. And as Libertarians have pointed out for a while, Socialism and Fascism are even closer than that.
Libertarianism is a completely useless, powerless ideology. It's honestly a pressure release valve for the right.
Libertarianism (both so called right-wing capitalist crowd or leftist communist side) is another stupid idea from the Age of Enlightenment
I guess Fascism was the middle child.
Oh yes Moldbug and the libertarians. What incredible insight
Democrats in the usa are fascists but can't see it.
I do disagree on ut theory of writings creating the forms of government later. I think the ongoings create writings and the ongoings then create states and one of the writings best able to fit the states that form are chosen by great men to legitimize those states.
Interesting video so far, reminds me of points from Jonah Goldberg's book from "Liberal Fascism:. Jonah though has different conclusions on the Enlightenment, real Enlightenment values like what led to the American Revolution would be right wing in the classic Lockean sense of things, while Fascism itself is a compromise system between socialism and the Free market.
41:35 Mussolini had an odd relationship with the Jews of Italy to say the least. He did not mind employing Jews such as Guido Jung as the minister of Finance. One of his earliest supporters was Sarfatti. It is thought that she was one of his mistresses. She later converted to Catholicism after Mussolini sought younger women. Sadly, Mussolini also changed his mind about Jews in general and many Italian Jews suffered. They were rounded up and interned. With the invasion of Italy by the Allies from the south and the occupation of the rest of the country by the Germans, the situation got a lot worse for the Jews. In the territories under German occupations Jews were killed or sent to their death in places such as Auschwitz. Some Jews managed to escape and were hidden by sympathetic Italians until the end of the war.
I'm super choked up about it, really I am...
@@titanomachy2217 I could care less if you were choked up about it or possibly even choking. Say something intelligent. I really do not care about your emotional response.
Excellently researched and presented once again! I am also honored by your attention to my comment in your previous video! But I did not mean to imply that I think Hitler was a conservative - I did not say that once. I agree with you that Hitler and the Nazis were revolutionary, not conservative. But not all revolutions are in the same direction. I even agree with you that Fascism/Nazism are not Right-wing in the usual sense. In my undergrad senior thesis on Fascism, I half-jokingly asserted that it is extreme-centrism in the way it opposed some elements of the Right and the Left, yet integrated others. This is why Fascism is referred to as a "Third Way."
In this video you more clearly explained your rational behind calling Fascism Liberal, but it is confusing to try to make political terms (namely "Liberal") that already have their own meanings mean anything you want. Perhaps a more responsible dichotomy for the point you are trying to make would be "Medieval Christendom" vs "Modern" for the political spectrum? I agree that both Fascism and Communism are both "modern," and even that they are both results of the Enlightenment (in the sense that they developed from those ideas). But Fascism and Communism are both rejections of Enlightenment Liberalism, not forms of it.
For an example, I refer to a quotation by Mussolini which you yourself provided. "Democracy is talking itself to death, etc." This quotation is ANTI-Liberal. No, I'm not saying Mussolini was Conservative, but he was a different KIND of Revolutionary. That is the problem with your dichotomy of Liberal-Conservative: lumping up everyone who isn't a Christendom Conservative into one party is misleading.
You quote Napoleon as saying "the majority of people are incapable of judging wisely of things." But wouldn't Plato and Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas and indeed most thinkers in the Western Civilization tradition, agree with this too?
Just because someone calls for a welfare state, doesn't mean they are a Marxist. Marx was a very particular kind of Socialist, but he is not responsible for all of Socialism. Even Otto von Bismarck made some welfare state policies for his German Reich, but was anti-Marxist.
I would like to see a video of yours examining Francisco Franco's regime, to hear you elaborate on him being a "murdering, horrible dictator" because he didn't tolerate political opposition. First, remember that at least at at least at first most of his political opposition were literal Communists. Second, would you call Charlemagne or most of the Medieval Christen monarchs "horrible dictators"?
I am not going to try to argue that Mussolini was a Catholic dictator or a good Catholic (as I might try to do with Franco). But to be fair, he wrote "God Does Not Exist" back in 1904, when he was a Communist, influenced directly by his Communist atheist father. He did not become dictator of Italy until 1922, and ruled until his deposition and death in 1944. I think all will agree that is plenty of time for one's beliefs to change.
For instance, in his 1928 autobiography, Mussolini wrote: “When, in parliament, I delivered my first speech of November 16, 1922, after the Fascist revolution, I concluded by invoking the assistance of God in my difficult task. Well, this sentence of mine seemed out of place! In the Italian parliament, a field of action for Italian Masonry, the name of God has been banned for a long time. Not even the Popular party - the so-called Catholic party - had ever thought of speaking of God. In Italy, a political man did not even turn his thoughts to the Divinity. And, even if he had ever thought of doing so, political opportunism and cowardice would have deterred him, particularly in a legislative assembly. It remained for me to make this bold innovation! … A faith openly expressed is a sign of strength. I have seen the religious spirit bloom again; churches once more are crowned, the ministers of God are themselves invested with new respect. Fascism has done and is doing its duty.”
Similarly, Mussolini did not pass any anti-Jewish laws until 1934 due to his alliance with Hitler. For the first decade of his rule, there was not anti-Jewish discrimination, and even after that point, there was discrimination but not outright persecution. No Jews were executed for being Jews under Mussolini's rule. (The great Italian movie Vita e Bella does a good job of showing this: anti-Jewish sentiment gradually growing in the first half of the movie, and when the main character is arrested in the second half, it is by German, not Italian, soldiers.) Mussolini's mistress Margherita Sarfatti was Jewish.
Regarding your claim that Mussolini was interested in racial supremacy and eugenics:
1. On 30 March 1933, Mussolini dispatched a note to the Italian ambassador in Berlin to deliver to Hitler advising against his anti-Semitic campaign: “Every regime has not only the right but the duty to eliminate from positions of influence those elements that are not completely trustworthy, but doing this on the basis of Semitic vs Aryan race can be damaging.” (David Kertzer, The Pope and Mussolini, 209)
2. After the ascent of the NSDAP, Mussolini welcomed German Jewish refugees to Italy, and had said in a series of 1932 interview conversations with German Jewish journalist Emil Ludwig, ‘National pride has no need of the delirium of race.’ (Alexander Stille, Benevolence and Betrayal, 48)
Also, every time someone mentions (as you do) Fascist violence against Socialists 1919-22, but don't also mention Socialist violence during the same period, they are encouraging a false image of history. This would be like a history book mentioning Kyle Rittenhouse shooting his three assailants, but neglecting to mention that BLM was burning down cities left and right throughout the summer of 2020. Italy was on the verge of Revolution regardless of Mussolini's Blackshirts.
I know I am coming at you with some strong opposition, but I want you do not I mean no disrespect. I appreciate the work that goes into these videos, and understand the points you are trying to make. I only take the time to write these points out because I think they are important caveats.
May Almighty God remove from the minds of my readers anything untrue, amen!
Liberal meaning, willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas...
Open go bad ideas
Liberal in the willingness to accept pagan, occultist ideologies.
@@kyleelsbernd7566Liberal means government by totalitarians, unfettered to Christian values. Liberalism was the push to deny the divine right of kings, and put pagan alchemist occultists, in charge of government, which is what they did. Liberalism rose out of Islamic influences after centuries of Islamic occupation of Spain, Greece, and parts of Italy. Liberalism meant the dictators installed by money lenders in banking didn't have to listen to Christian bishops and priests, to try to restrain their tendency to abuse their power. .
Your definition means a liberal must accept a oppressor. If you are willing to accept behavior different then yours then you must accept those who dislike and want to remove your freedoms.
But liberals do the opposite. They label those groups as “threats to democracy”.
Even libertarians & anarchists don’t respect those who oppose their liberty. Your definition is at best meaningless and at worst never used.
...no standards for objective Truth.
Luciferian.
I have NO problem with "Hitler was a Liberal". But the upgrade title feels like the grand climax of the series and the end result when the "Enlighten Civilization" separates itself from God
Well this was a complete waste of time. You said nothing, because you're making a point that is not coherent. Because you're not describing liberalism, you are describing SECULARISM, of which liberalism is but one variant. The problem here is that nearly every term in modern politics is a weasel word. Liberalism itself is two philosophies in a trench coat: one is emancipatory, that humans ought to do what they like, in theory as long it doesn't harm others, and the Lord Acton version with is that liberalism is the freedom to do as one ought.
To say that Fascism is a child of the secular age is nothing. It is self obvious. You want a definition of the right and right that doesn't depend on sucking on Augustine's teat? You have to go to Sociology, namely Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Two different ways of social being, the Gemeinshaft with is traditional and close knit and Gesellschaft, which is modern and rational(HA) and transactional. More importantly is the spirit by which things are done, in the Geschschaft, it is Wilkbur, which is the arbitrary exercize of will and and in the other Wesenwille, which can mean a couple of things but mostly means sense of communal duty.
The left, which is spiritually satanic, wants freedom unrestrained and unbound by duty. The right, however ineptly and sometimes with great cruelty, seeks to preserve what is left of the Gemeinschaft by trying to channel the Wesenwille. Why Fascism is considered right wing is that use of corporatism is actually a defense and attempted revival of the corpratist understanding of how pre-commerical revolution cities in Europe interacted with each other (mostly through a lot of guild bargaining) All the Volkish movements in Germany were also about trying to preserve the Gemeinshaft of the pre-Industiral social order of German society which was melting under modern modes of production.
The central issue of politics is not philosophy, it's a spiritual battle. If you're ever heard of Western esotericism's distinction between the right and left hand paths, that's not just for 'magic' but the orientation of all deeds in life. It's the fable of the bees: the abandonment of virtue ethics in the pursuit of making money. As the movement goes, secularism was just the means to liberalism, so common but ambitious men could make as much money as they personally could whatever the damage, so they could become the new aristocracy by another name. That is all of the thing we call Capitalism.
These terms of left and liberal and their changes ARE useful because they represent the snakes molting their skins, first they part ways with the traditional right who abused their powers of nobility to degrees that would make Ahab shake his head, then the left from the liberal, then even the left from economic Marxisms, to "cultural Marxists" who are nihilistic satanists in all but name. The evil of the left hand path is total, and those it leaves behind you can see how much they were willing to tenderize the meat of communal duty and communal relations in favor of personal power and the exaltation of their own genius. The earlier they parted ways with the left hand path, the less they were willing to play along to get along.
The issue is far bigger, deeper and more primal than mere Christianity.
What are you people ON?!
Can you do a video on how Italy inspired Germany and imperial japan, imperial Japan especially i don't see how they're a significant influence compared to say britain and whatever was the "stock" western influence at the time.
Liberalism is hard to define for modern people just as water is hard to define for fish. Most people simply never have heard a non-liberal opinion.
Education does not equal "training." Credentials and grades are worldly affectations and emphasizing those diminishes your credibility. Let your work and your words speak for themselves.
Christianity isn’t “right wing”, so maybe don’t throw shade.
Similar. Dinesh D'Souza explains this from a political perspective.
Great podcast.
Fascism is right wing because Stalin said it was. Political thinkers, historians and other academics today, agree that fascism is right wing, because Stalin said it was
The meaning of right and left has changed over time. Originally the left meant republican revolutionaries and right meant monarchists. Contemporaries in the 30s and 40s understood Hitler to be right wing, because right wing referred to reactionaries at that time. It was the Cold War that lent right and left the meaning of capitalist and socialist. So, it is an anachronism to apply the modern meaning because these terms were understood differently. Not to mention, Hitler does not fit very well into the modern understanding. We all know this is also an exercise in guilt by associafilm with a political bogeyman. This sort of juvenile behaviour is best left to the experts of such things (the brain dead modern left)
Ohh boy, all the edgy Fad Trads and Mussolini stans aren't gonna like this one...
Fascism is never on the RIGHT side of. Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords.
@@RlsIII-uz1kl What do you think a King is, you imbicile?
"Ohh boy, all the people who dont get their opinions from youtubers arent going to like a norvo presenting his proddy fanfiction as Catholic history"
Yeah, great insight, you must be a seer.
@@daniel8181 even Giovanni Gentile acknowledged the Revolutionary currents in Fascism, and that it wouldn't have been possible without 1789. But yeah, ok, everything you don't like is actually PrOdDy FaNfIcTiOn lmao
REAL and BASED Catholics venerate St. Duce because some mystic claimed to have seen him in Purgatory and he once talked to Padre Pio, right?
Go touch grass dude
@@johnbenedictxviii Real and based Catholics aren't ecumenical Christ deniers,
Go touch a pew, dude.
I don't know why ur calling it pragmatically atheistic. Socialism doesn't seem evry pragmatist to me and half classical liberals aren't exactly pragmatists either, being more an American thing.
Do you have any quotes by hitler concerning Christianity and atheism in his party?
Hello, I have some quotes showing Hitler's views on Christianity in the video on Hitler in this series.
@@historiaecclesiastica Did you mention his quote where he forbids anyone in the party for disrespecting Christianity?
@@historiaecclesiasticaalso, what are your thoughts on Hitler's rejection of Freemasonry?
@mayachico9766 This is historian Laurence Rees' take on that quote you referenced: "The most persuasive explanation of [Hitler's] statements is that Hitler, as a politician, simply recognised the practical reality of the world he inhabited ... Had Hitler distanced himself or his movement too much from Christianity it is all but impossible to see how he could ever have been successful in a free election. Thus his relationship in public to Christianity - indeed his relationship to religion in general - was opportunistic. There is no evidence that Hitler himself, in his personal life, ever expressed any individual belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church". Also, I address Hitler's relationship with freemasonry in this video.
Just read Mein Kampf....It is not a Christian book.
Lore of Fascism is not Right Wing: A Christian Historiographical Perspective (Enlightenment/World Wars p.13) momentum 100
It goes back to the Renaissance, really...
The funny thing is that Nat-soc is basically a centrist position.
are you insane? nazfasc is third position, its a whole other world
Nationalism is depicted as far right by the transnationalists socialists/globalist socio-fascists. With their woke cult (a form of Hegelian cultism) dogmatic beliefs that Nationalism is an inherently bad thing which it isn't in regards to liberal/civic/democratic nationalism.
@@antoniopascotto4139we're living under a transnationalist socialist/globalist socio-fascist (Third Worldism) regime at this very moment and its results are many including the secular religion known as woke cultism (a form of Hegelian cultism).
@@memlagu It's a mixed economy that excepts the market and still practices socialism. It's definitely economically centrist at the very least.
@@forestgiest1380 do you have any notion of how out of whack do you sound?
I pose the question....would one rather be in either Spain or Italy on 1940 or in 2024? Democracy does not work in Europe and legitimate Dictators are the only segway for a return to Catholic Monarchy.
@thelostcreole Could you give a summary of what you perceive as the pros and cons of Franco's regime?
@@historiaecclesiastica cons....price controls...pros...defeated the Communistas, control degenaracy, return to Monarchy
3:20 brothers your videos are informative & very well-made. Don’t pay attention to people manifesting is anything it’s a testament to you are hedging in the right direction
Are there ANY positives to fascism?....
From my personal searching, it's power-hungry men LARPing as heroic barbarians to recover 'lost strength' from the dullness of materialism. Not saying they are the same, but the appeal of Fascism is an appeal to mankind's tribal/'polis' (greek city-state) inclinations. The Polis/nation-state is an ideal to sacrifice for, the supreme leader is an idol or stand-in for God or king or local chief.
...Basically I think it will only work in a Mad Max style scenario, but it would still collapse due to its own man-centered nature. Worse because, while the pagans had a sense of the spiritual, a lot of Fascism is debased spirituality, to make it more convenient for the ruling party and to make an 'easy sell' to the masses.
@zachlong5427 you're answer seems loaded, and you strike me as a bot....
@@zachlong5427 That was more the Italian version. There are more variations on it than just that.
They didn’t burn down the churches and imprison Christians. Thats about it. So after its fall, it doesn’t fall into chaos like Communist countries do, since there’s still an innate social fabric left in society.
Great video, seems you got a lot of Nazis mad, poor them.
Giovani Is the father of Fascism.
What? The only political view which supports Christ
It’s neither left nor right
It’s third position ideology
It’s right wing element is its affirmation of hierarchy and racial/ethnic identity ,cult of personality around an supreme leader
It’s left wing in its approach towards economic affairs and matters and favours an paternalistic approach towards managing markets
The elements you described as right wing are only arbitrarily associated with the right wing. This video attempts to establish an objective criteria for placing ideologies on a left right spectrum.
The left can have a Supreme leader as long as its a shell of a person who has no identity. Because the followers believe themselves to be god's. The original sin. The must all be able to relate through the policies that push their agenda.
3rd position movements like Fascism were still on the Far-Left. While it rejected Capitalism, it never rejected socialism. They just came from the belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society.
world very lucky molotov-ribbentrop pact didn’t hold. a four nation axis would have been unbeatable. russia could have struck south towards iran and india instead of fighting hitler, who had plenty of lebensraum.
there is no left or right, its third position wtf
Any position that doesn’t fit with the current politics of the day is considered a 3rd position like distributism. That nevertheless doesn’t say much and so it’s better to dive into the actual positions and policies
@@AristotlesRevolution that's a fallacy, to associate fascism with right or left wing ideologies just because people say so is beyond dumb
@@antoniopascotto4139 it's objectively post-Enlightenment leftist, their own self-definition is irrelevant. It's a form of managerialism based in nominalist, materialist relativism.
Claiming it's not Leftist is like claiming that Girondins, British Tories or American Republicans are not liberals.
3rd position movements like Fascism were still on the Far-Left. While it rejected Capitalism, it never rejected socialism. They just came from the belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society.
Using the words Christian and history in the same sentence is an oxymoron
thats an anti truth since a) christianity literally preserved most acient texts and created sciences and the biggest record keeping institutions and b) you wouldn't be able to read and write if it wasn't for christianity
How so? Christianity is the driving force behind most of western, and a good chunk of eastern, history for the last 2000 years. Your statement just goes to show how poor the American education system really is. Do you think the people pushing for the end of slavery were doing so with secular arguments? No, most were convinced that slavery was immoral because they held a Christian worldview.
@@mikejames303 all religion has been proven to be nonsense
Dumb comment
To let you know where I'm coming from, I personally don't see much value in the lens you're using. That being said, I hope my comments could be of some use.
1. If you are aware that a term means many different things, and isn't useful, its probably better to now use it, instead of adding yet another definition.
2. It is entirely possible for different people to end up at different conclusions, even when given the same foundation, be it differences in policy/ideals in economic/social liberalism, or differences between Christian groups. Consider that capitalism, state capitalism, command economies, and barter economies are all advocated for under different ideologies you classified as liberal.
3. "liberal capitalists are virtually always in favor of a huge welfare state", 35% of the us budget is medicare and social security, of which both parties are in favor (or at least the voters). Which supports your argument better than how you presented it.
4. describing a book as atheistic is odd, given that books can not be theistic.
5. saying that you were convincing makes me thing that you weren't convincing.
6. putting "progress" in quotation marks makes it look like you're claiming Hitler was progressive, which appears contrary to his stated aims and actions. While i am aware that it fits given your definitions, anyone who isn't already in agreement with you will not go along with it.
7. "Hitler was a son of the Enlightenment" is a better title, both provocative, and not using bespoke definitions to define yourself into correctness
8. "preservation of the status quo" is one of the more popular definitions of "conservative"
9. i know its more work, but if you're going to show the comment, and a summary of your responses, it would better to have the text of the comment be large enough to read, either by having it be the only thing up, showing the whole thing and then going point by point, etc.
10. Given the mixed nature of the German economy under Nazism, calling it "socialist" is only accurate if you're using a definition most others aren't'
11. Defining policies typically seen as right wing or conservative because 'eugenics are left wing' comes across as avoiding the issue. I'm fairly certain you are responding in good faith, but there's a fundamental issue of communication. It seems that you want to draw a throughline of philosophy to action, but when particular actions or policies are regarded as right, and you're saying "everything that isn't religion is left", people are not going to agree with you on your conclusions, since they don't agree with your premises, and because they use a different mental model even when the premises are agreed on.
12. "He looked good at first, looked conservative, and then he wasn't". Are you saying he looked conservative and then didn't, or that he looked good and then didn't?
13. "political ideologies should be defined on where they originate philosophically". This is something of a stumbling block. While it may make sense to call the various Protestant sects offshoots of Catholicism, it doesn't follow that they make sense to be classified in that way when it comes to... anything other than the development of sects in Christianity. Additionally, as stated previously, the same starting state can result in different policy/belief, and the same policy/belief can result from different starting states.
14. its not gaslighting, you're using your own definitions to define away how other people reach that conclusion.
15. camaraderie is a bit of an overreach, remember that people don't gain power by staying true to philosophical ideals
16. "majority of professional historians consider themselves members of the marxist school of historiography" I really wonder what misunderstanding lead you to believe this.
I'm stopping at 28 minutes. My lunch is over. Final thoughts, I disagree with virtually all your premises, and think the manner in which you define things is counterproductive at best. You accusing others of gaslighting killed most of my inclination to assume good faith, since it shows either a massive failure of your understanding, or bad faith on your part. I think you could do better.
Finally, please don't use this comment in a future video.
@TheThinkingJester thank you for giving my video a watch during your lunch break. It's hard to have a conversation on all your points, but I'll take a crack at a couple. You said that just because Fascism and other movements I mentioned emerged from Enlightenment thought, that doesn't mean they should be associated together directly in a single category. As an example, you referenced how Protestant theology diverged from Catholic theology, but the two are still deemed distinct. I thought this was a good analogy because it suggests Fascism or Nazism may have broken off from earlier forms of Enlightenment-atheistic thought rather been mere siblings of them. However, your analogy further demonstrates why all of these ideologies should be categorized together in some fashion; Protestant and Catholic theology, while distinct, are both clearly examples of Christian thought. Fascism, communism, and republicanism, while distinct, still belong, then, in a single category which is distinct from forms of state that don't originate with the Enlightenment.
When I argued that classifying Fascism as right wing is baseless and the common assertion of this is an instance of intellectual gas lighting, it's because no clear criteria is generally provided to explain why the characteristics of Fascism belong on an opposite side of a spectrum from Communism, let alone how the spectrum used should have a clear reference and connection to the ideologies present on opposing sides of the French Revolution. If we are going to use the terms left and right in reference to the French Revolution to place two ideologies that were both in favor of the "left side" of the French Revolution on opposite sides, it needs to be clearly explained what ideologies like Fascism or Nazism have ideologically in common with the Monarchism of the original right side of the French Assembly, and it needs to be more clear why communism is left and Fascism is right, and not vice versa.
@@historiaecclesiastica I used the analogy because while they could be grouped in that manner, it is not a useful grouping unless contrasted with an even larger outgroup, preferably one with more than one representative. Your grouping is effectively, "this, which is happen to believe in", and "not this, all the stuff i don't believe in". This is part of why I think your chosen lens is not of great value on the topic. It comes across as excessively parochial.
No clear criteria? While fascism itself is a bit of a slippery definition, the traits that people agree on are all typically considered right wing. It is typically seen as either conservative or reactionary in terms of culture, and is pro hierarchy. The economic leanings tend to be mixed economies, which are not necessarily left nor right by 20th and 21st century standards, and is therefore usually not brought up; excepting when it is misrepresented as Marxist of course. If you need a connection to the French revolution, the right was in favor of hierarchy, while the left claimed otherwise, and by that standard, the fascists would be right wing.
You seem to be missing that while the phrasing of left and right originated in France, it is not used in reference to French politics at this point. While that does make it less useful when comparing comparative politics across time, that simply means it shouldn't be used in this context, not that it should be used on opposition to its current use. That simply impairs communication.
On a side note, some people do place communism as a right wing ideology, though they explain it as authoritarianism being a right wing trait, with liberalism/libertarianism being its left wing equivalent. Note how this is about as unhelpful as the left/right divide you show as a default, and still slightly more helpful than the one you're suggesting be used.
It is clearly not "intellectual gas lighting" because the people saying it believe it, and are using language in the manner that is commonly understood. There is no connection to "attempts to sow self doubt and confusion".
Why didn’t the Pope excommunicate Hitler? Why didn’t the Pope excommunicate those Catholics who served in the Waffen SS? Because the Church sympathized with fascism. Francisco Franco. Ante Pavelic. Father Jozef Tiso.
Because Hitler already excommunicated himself by leaving the Faith.
There is a massive difference between the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Christianity. The Orthodox Christians were often locked in churches and burned to ground. The Orthodox Church is the true church. Orthodox Christianity has to go underground until after the war and we're met with another leftist regime, the Marxists. P
The whole video can be summed up as:
“Right wing = Catholic Church,
Hitler =/= Catholic Church, Hitler =/= Right Wing”
Then anything genuinely right wing fascists did you just hand wave with some excuse. This video is just silly
@brodbreiss what did they do that was right wing and what criteria do you use to say that those actions are right wing?
And liberalism is right wing… that’s what these people actually believe
uga buga christ is right wing for sure
You're correct. Facism and Communism are right wing and, fundamentally, the same. It is 'the people' being incharge. They just define 'the people' (working class v. 'nation') differently.
Communism is of the Left and fascism is of the center left... possibly just not of the right...
Communism is on the Extreme left, while Fascism is on the Far-Left.
It is far right, you lift your right hand far above your chest.
The left side of the brain controls the right. 😂
Fascism is neither left nor rightwing... it's the third position
3rd position movements like Fascism were still on the Far-Left. While it rejected Capitalism, it never rejected socialism. They just came from the belief that the "Stateless and Classless society" Communism calls for after its dictatorship cannot achieve Socialism, and that only the State can properly organize a Socialist Society.
Next time dont wait 22 minutes into a video to address what your video is actually about, too much housekeeping for an hour long video
Fascism : Favorit bastard of anticommunism