Nazism is a Fruit of the Atheistic Enlightenment (Enlightenment and the World Wars Series part 12)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 жов 2024
- In this video, we examine the liberal philosophers and racial scientists of the German Enlightenment which were instrumental in forming Hitler's Nazi ideology. Next time, we will examine the liberal origins of Fascism.
As a reminder, the term "liberal" in this video is defined from the onset as being "liberal or free in relationship to traditional Christian moral values and political principles" especially in a manner which was inspired by the Enlightenment. I understand that there are a wide variety of alternative definitions of the term liberal, but this is the definition which I am arguing Hitler represented in this lecture.
Adolph ran as a “social democrat” in his own words pre 1933.
For anyone who says far left socialists can’t be Nationalists? Take a look at Scotlands governing party.
Socialism is a wide spectrum of ideologies. And if your first thought was Lucifer? Then you truly are your brothers keeper, and finder of lost children.
Deus Vult brother ✝️🌈🙏🏻
@@historiaecclesiastica Deleting my comment won’t stop what is inevitable. Bury your head in the sand all you like, it is fast approaching.
@@youarenotme01 I did not delete your comment, youtube may have.
@@historiaecclesiastica In this case, it's wordplay. You could say that liberalism caused Islam, since Islam rejects earlier Christianity.
@@avalokitesvara4092 An interesting comment that points out flaws with my definition above. As this video shows, however, Nazism explicitly drew from German Enlightenment thinkers as well as from atheistic social darwinists who were intellectual descendents from the English Enlightenment. So, the term liberal here has origins in the sort of liberalizing of intellectual life from Divine Revelation that the Enlightenment stood for. Islam, of course, has different origins.
"American conservatism" is an oxymoron because American conservatives conserve Locke's Classical Liberalism. The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment makes the federal government religiously indifferent. But Blessed Pope Pius IX condemns religious indifferentism in his Syllabus of Errors. That heresy says everyone has a God-given right to practice any religion he prefers.
Freedom from religion was for the federal government to not pick any denomination from the local states. Most of the founders were religious, quakers, protestant against the Anglican Church and states themselves had state religions based around the consensus of the local populous. Stay away from revisionist post modern garbage, and read what founders were saying. American conservatism refers to the traditional foundation of the country. These labels are outdated in the modern paradigm shift., modern 'liberals' and leftists have not much in common with Locke themselves. So no, American conservatism is not an oxymoron if you know what 'conservatism' means...which is to conserve.
You sound like you’re an enemy to the First Amendment and therefore an enemy to The United States of America.
@@juanconnor8224 Actually you are lying, the founding father where at best theist for the most part, reason a lot where freemasons. Yankee conservatism is abomination and really just classical liberalism. Liberalism has its origin in the Protestant reformation.
@@juanconnor8224What you just described is not Christian, it's Masonic. Freedom of religion directly contradicts the social reign of Christ on Earth, which is based on patriarchy (fatherhood). It means that you do not have a right to religious error, because it would be an abdication of the role of the father to allow his children to poison themselves with error. Does every child have a right to eat any chemical they come across in the home? Of course not. If parents allowed children to stick anything in their mouths without protecting them we would recognize it as neglect. Likewise, we can recognize that no one can claim a right to error, even if they have the ability. The father has an obligation to protect the children, yet the children still have the ability to destroy themselves by making wrong choices. However, it can never be said that the children have a right to these wrong choices. So there can be no right to participate in false religions.
In America you are only allowed to say that you are Mosslem or Christian or whatever but only allowed to practice Freemasonry.
Could one say that the ideologies of the 20th century each represent a different error of the enlightenment/revolution?
Liberté- liberalism
Égalité- communism
Fraternité- fascism
Interesting perspective.
Damn…
Worse. He was an occultist.
who said capitalism was any better?
Depending on whom you ask, these three things are all distinct or Liberté is fairness as Égalité. Of course, normal people accept the former because liberalism alllows for inequality and it is even difficult for liberalism to escape it. The only reason I know that it depeneds on whom you ask whether these three things are all distinct or Liberté is fairness as Égalité is because Johnathan Haidt says the latter in The Righteous Mind.
Excellent video, and I intend to watch some more of this series! A few counter points:
The NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party) did not see themselves in a context of Christian Conservatism vs Enlightenment Liberalism - and indeed, it is historically inaccurate and oversimplistic to take the context and conditions of any one time and thrust or impose it upon the actions of people in another time. Rather, the NSDAP (Nazis) saw themselves in a struggle to defend European Civilization against International Judeo-Capitalism-Communism.
"Hitler can be called a liberal because of the sense in which the word was understood in the 18th century." Okay, but NOT in the way the word was understood in the 20th century - when he is actually from.
1. Thus, they opposed Freemasonry (something the Traditional Conservative Catholics would appreciate) (Winston Churchill and Harry S. Truman were both Freemasons).
2. They opposed prostitution, pornography, homosexuality, and transsexuality (if not because their God forbad it, but because they saw them as Jewish instruments of the degradation and destruction of the European Race; as indeed these degenerate ideas were being promoted disproportionately by Jewish influencers in Weimar Germany, such as Magnus Hirschfeld founded the Institute of Sexual Research in Berlin, as well as Jewish sexual psychologist Sigmund Freud. See also the disproportionately Jewish Neo-Marxist Frankfurt School, which fled the Nazis and set up shop in the United States; and how to this day mainstream media is controlled by Jews, and you are called "antisemitic" just for pointing this out).
3. They forbad abortions, which had been quite common in Weimar Germany (for Germans; Jews and other races were still allowed to get abortions)
4. They opposed inflation and usury (seen as a Jewish tool to gain control and influence over national governments - as the Rothschilds themselves bragged about with Great Britain, and as we can see with the Federal Reserve in the USA today).
5. They opposed parliamentary Democracy (because they saw it as a means of the wealthy and connected to control the nation, rather than serve the nation - see AIPAC, the largest lobby in American politics today).
6. They opposed Bolshevism/Communism as a Jewish plot to subjugate the world (as Karl Marx was himself a Jew, and the 1918 German Communist Revolution was sponsored by the COMINTERN and lead disproportionately by Jews; this is the roots of the "Stab in the Back" narrative).
7. They opposed the individualism of Liberalism, and proposed instead finding purpose, value, and belonging in membership in and service to the Volksgemeinschaft, “People’s Community.” “The more fanatically nationalist we are, the more we must take the welfare of the community to heart, that means the more fanatically socialist we must become.”
8. They also opposed the dehumanization of the industrial factory: The worker under the Capitalist state “is no longer a living human being, no longer an originator, no longer a creator; he is changed into a machine, a number, a robot in a factory, without sensibility or goal.” - Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister
9. The NSDAP placed a bachelor tax on men to encourage them to marry, and gave interest-free loans to newlyweds to encourage the wife to tend to the affairs of motherhood: “children, kitchen, and church,” and freeing up jobs for unemployed men. Part of the loan was forgiven for each child, encouraging large families.
10. Finally, it was Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy (along with the Vatican) that provided assistance to Franco's Catholic Conservative rebellion against the Secular Communist Republic in Spain, while England, France, and the USA provided more assistance to the Reds. So in that political spectrum (ie. the one actually contemporary and not from two hundred years previously), Fascism and Nazism seem closer to the Right (ie. on the literal same side as the Vatican), and the rest of "Liberal-Conservative" Europe seems to be closer on the Left (literally the same side as the USSR).
Thanks for reading and your consideration! Cheers, and God bless!
PS. Blaming the Germans for the Investiture Controversy is historically irresponsible, considering that battle had already been fought and lost in the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire and Orthodox Church. Also, blaming the Germans for Communism is equally inaccurate, as Karl Marx was Jewish, not German. Saying "it's almost as if the Germans have been the perpetual bad guy" is just as racist as saying that about the Jews or any other race.
Yes, the Christian must hold that all humans are made in the Image and Likeness of God. But no one would be so foolish to believe that we are all equally as fast, or equally as strong. And don't we admit that some people are smarter (and therefore some are less smart) than others? Why is it now taboo, why are we are not longer allowed to investigate these differences? It appears that Science is now afraid to be politically incorrect. Is that something to celebrate? I am called to love all men as my brothers and sisters in Christ. But I don't have to believe they are all equally as capable to do all things - indeed, you must agree that that is absurd.
"Human society, as God established it, is composed of unequal elements, just as the members of the human body are unequal. To make them all equal would be impossible, and would result in the destruction of society itself." - St. Pope Pius X, Quod Apostolici muneris
PPS. In sum, the problem with setting all political history as "Liberal/Left (against the Catholic Church)" vs "Conversative/Right (pro-Catholic Church)" is that it oversimplifies everything and ignores all the differences various "Liberal/Left" movements and thinkers had with each other. Just because they disagree with you, doesn't mean they agree with each other.
PPPS. The invasion of the USSR was not "ridiculous." The USSR was the bigger evil. And Hitler and the Nazis would have succeeded were not Stalin and his evil regime supported and propped up by the British and American Empires.
PPPPS. St. Maximilian Kolbe also believed in the Jewish-Masonic Globalist "conspiracy theory." And it was the Popes and the Catholic Church who first required Jews to wear yellow stars, not Hitler and the Nazis.
PPPPPS. Do you claim that homosexuality is NOT a mental illness? For most of Christendom, buggery was also considered a crime as well as a sin. Homosexuals "reproduce" through media and culture. They were "reproducing" and becoming more common in Weimar Germany because the cultural regime was encouraging them - just like today.
That's quite a few disagreements for an "excellent" video, ha. I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful counterpoints, and I intend on responding to a few of them in a future video. Thanks for your time.
@@Dominic.Dybala thank you for your comment, especially defending the German people! My husband is German and I got really worked up with the accusation in the video, but since I have a toddler running around at home, I didn't have the time or energy to reply! So thank you for your reply!
Very good comment, sums up my reaction in a better way than I could've put it. I would urge anyone interested in the topic to look beyond pop history channels on UA-cam or even contemporary historians for information on the period and the funny mustache man discussed in the video. The "Europa: The Last Battle" documentary is a good start.
Still, the National Socialist German Arbitration Party was very syndicalist in both its conception and execution. To this end, professor Stanley Payne is correct in his pointing out that Nazism and Soviet communism were miles closer (if not in practice indistinguishable) that National Socialism and historic fascism.
@user-jm4kz5bg9f that is correct but it doesn't imply what the author of the video wants it to. Societies have always been collectivist, everyone works for the greater good. The natsocs having a socialist economy doesn't mean they were liberals. There's plenty of confusion with the terminology too, because contrary to what most believe, the term socialism preexisted Marx himself. The natsocs were socialists, just not Marxist socialists.
“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
- Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941
@youarenotme01 Hitler in a conversation with aides, 1942: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science ... Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left to prove that nature there is no frontier between the organic and inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."
@@historiaecclesiastica Your revisionist intellectual dishonesty meaningless in the face of his diary, his speeches, paintings (Mary and Jesus), “God with us” on military uniforms, his book, countless photographs of him at church, and more.
I’ve the unfortunate displeasure of being a supa-smartie with a background/education/intellect beyond your wildest imagination. I will topple your religion. You cannot stop me. All your attempts to rebuke/silence/discredit me will fail. I am beyond your sophomoric arguments. You will lose everything, bereft of all political standing in the world. There has never been a person like me so you do not see me coming, my impenetrable arguments yet unfathomable to you. The angels on my shoulders unstoppable. You will cry tears of humiliation like a petulant child to no avail. I will laugh like the biblical fool. You refuse to believe me now, but you will. It is certain. I’m the descendant of one of the most notable families of meritocracy in history, you are but a ship of mentally impotent fools. Your best and brightest a sad mediocrity. I’d wager you know so little of reality if I told you my name you wouldn’t even recognise it, yet the entirety of the world down to the most remote villages are reliant on our inventions. Our name spoken in every university on earth. The Nobel prizes to prove it. You can ‘pretend’ you’ll beat me, but the probability of that is zero. I’ve already won you just don’t realise it yet. The job of the genius is to throw a single stone and destroy all of your stained glass windows with such elegant simplicity that no one can argue with it. Prepare for inevitable defeat.
Best of all you will demand to advance the war in the Middle East, your sons will martyr themselves in the sand. You began like Job, will end like Ecclesiastes.
@@youarenotme01 what?
@@ShaNaNa242 Note: I’m not glorifying him, just the facts here. H’tl’r was absolutely, positively a devout catholic. The amount of evidence is staggering:
Paintings of Mary and Jesus
Photographs of him at church
Countless writings, speeches, private letters, conversations, his diary, his book
“Today Christians… stand at the head of [this country).. I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past... (few) years.”
(Adolf Hitler, quoted in: The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872)
Note he specifically states in his book he’s ANTI-LIBERAL.
I’ve the unfortunate displeasure of being a supa-smartie that is incapable of lying. H’tl’r was with certainty a catholic. This channel is propaganda. The best thing for you to do is to go to the source and look. None of this is a secret, it’s that you’ve never looked that the propagandists get away this these lies. Don’t let them lead you somewhere you don’t wanna go because that is exactly what they’re doing.
@ youarenotme01 In Mien Kamp, Hitler wrote, "Christianity is the greatest lie ever told!" Hitler, like the devil, utilized masks to fool useful idiots!
When I was first awakened to the JayQueue I became a natsoc as they were the only ones to speak on that issue when I first heard about it, but it was missing God and was atheistic and ultimately insufficient
Then I found Bishop Williamson and reverted to Catholicism and now I'm an Orthodox catechumen after learning about Dr Matt R Johnson and Fr Seraphim Rose
Jesus was Jewish. How do you deal with that?
@@stevencoardvenice Dr E Michael Jones best explains it
The Jewish/Hebrew people includes the Apostles, The Blessed Virgin, the early Christians, St Paul, the Sadducees, Pharisees, etc. the Jews as a political entity is only the Pharisees and their successors. The Pharisees told Pilate to crucify Christ, the Pharisees and those loyal to them shouted "Crucify Him!!". The blessed Virgin did NOT cry out "crucify him". When the Church says the Jews are to blame we mean not every individual Jew, like St Mary and St Paul, but the Pharisees and their successors, the Rabbinic Jews, who continue to deny Christ and work against Him and the Church, this is well documented but it's forbidden to speak on it freely
Rabbinic Jews deny Karaite Jews and they explicitly deny Christ and, as St Paul says, they are the enemy of humankind
The JayQueue is about Rabbinic, Talmudic Jews' subversion of Christian society
The Talmud is the traditions of men St Paul speaks of and they are the synagogue of Satan as the Talmud goes against the spirit of the Law by trying to find loopholes while being legalistic and so on
Jesus may have been born a "Jew" but he is not a Jew in the contemporary sense since modern Jews deny Christ and are talmudists. Jesus was not a talmudist. Jesus affirmed the trinity and his own divinity while Jews(Rabbinic Jews) deny this core doctrine
You saying he is a Jew is pure ignorance and if you're not ignorant it is bad faith
Modern Jews must convert for their own souls
E Michael Jones explains this and the Jews cannot refuge him, only silence him
@@stevencoardvenice idk where my reply went but simply put Jews as a people is not the same as the Rabbinic talmudic Jewish religion that existed after Christ and so Jesus is not a contemporary Jew
@@delgande fair enough
SHOTS FIRED I REPEAT WE HAVE SHOTS FIRED
…a second video has hit the building…
Nazism was Third Position. Elements of both the right and left in it. Third Position came from a nationalist version of Syndicalism which was a Marxist Socialist idea. They didn't agree with class warfare anymore and wanted class collaboration but still hated Capitalism but was against Marxism as it was a competitor.
Essentially a religious sect in a way
Fascism was ideologically "national syndicalism with a philosophy of actualist idealism" at the beginning. Of course the syndicalist elements of the movement were downplayed by 1922 when they joined with the right and became the armed protection racket of the bourgeoisie. The term "third position" wasn't used.
@@PierreTruDank Well retroactively we would call it Third Position as Fascism literally was a Third Position movement and ideology.
All those soldiers, both german and others, fought, suffered, and died against the soviet union for nothing? But didnt their fighting the soviets keep soviets from advancing further into europe? I mean the USSR was one of the allied nations.
Parties, philosophies, and religions should not be seen as discreet phenomena, but as a collection of traits, and those individual traits can be criticized. "Nazis were racists.". Well, Nazis were also socialists.
AS FAR as I can see and study the political movements are all the same, the results will all be the same..And your making it clear why I see it as all the same. the one result is force, they would force everyone to obey only them.
There is a fundamental element missing from your analysis and that is authority. Force is not inherently bad or good. What makes it wrong or right is authority. Because your analysis has removed authority, you have resulted in the false conclusion that force itself is evil. The irony is that that leads to a world far more suppressive and intolerant because those who believe in such an overarching ideology seek power to dominate others for their grand vision of stopping all conflict. The irony of that position is that in order to achieve this utopian vision they must use the most oppressive force of all. This is the ideology that leftists have used to justify their atrocities of the 20th century. They really believe they're the Superman or the Ubermensch, with the overarching ideology that is superior to all other belief systems because they believe that ultimately they will stop all conflict. It will only take eliminating and suppressing resistors to make that happen, which they believe is the necessary sacrifice to achieve their grand vision. 😢
Stirring the hornet's nest with this one 😅😅
Very interesting and insightful.
WW2 was simply a dispute between different flavors of liberalism.
NOPE!!!! Flavours of socialism including catholic socialism
NO! Flavours of socialism including catholic socialism,
Liberalism being the opposite, the individuals interest are above the "collectives"
@@NixonThr336ixsocialism is based on liberalism my friend. And collectivism =\= socialism.
You guys need to read Ludwig Von Mises's Economic and Sociological Analysis of Socialism and his Human Action Treatice on Economics. However, I do NOT expect you to bother.
Ludwig Von Mises's Economic and Sociological Analysis of Socialism and his Human Action Treatice on Economics, show that Classical Liberal Individualist social life includes the individual social concept and interests in harmony of the social interests.@@NixonThr336ix
If you haven't finished the "Jewish" video for your next upload/release, can can you include some modern contemporary authors about the subject of the Jewish Conspiracy.
I cite E. Michael Jones on this particular subject because one of the main points he writes on the Jewish Revolution Spirit [book] is that Jewish people reject Jesus. By rejecting Jesus as our lord and savior as well fulfilling the promises of the Old Testament, they, the Jewish People, have evolved a revolutionary spirit that has manifested forth ever since the rejection of Jesus. This comes in many forms that reject the teachings of Jesus [New Testament], but one of the primary means that the Jewish Evolutionary Spirit spews forth is subversion of the moral order established by a Christian society. Money is the most immediate form that comes to mind as formal endless cycle of perpetual debt [slavery], but the use of sodomy to also to destroy the moral order.
I find his books compelling, and although I myself don't want to jump to a Jewish conspiracy, the evidence seems to lead into that conclusion of Jewish subversion. I should also say that Judaism today is Rabbinic Judaism which is very different because of it's adherents to the Talmud. It's kind of like the Hadith in Islam where scholars have to sit and discuss which is valid and isn't.
I don’t think it’s a leap at all to say they are conspiring. What do people think Our Lord was saying about them and this issue in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen? He says that they will conspire to take over the “vineyard”. What is the vineyard? God’s world and kingdom. Not only did they become revolutionaries, I dare say they aligned themselves to Satan himself.
If you take Jewish texts literally then there is no reason for Israel to even exist because the Torah says that Jews must WAIT for the Messiah to appear and only then to take them to the "holy land".
It is only through the Kabbalah, metaphorical interpretations of the Torah by Jewish mystics and Freemasons where they get the idea that the Messiah is only a METAPHOR for the state of Israel.
But its not about Israel in Palestine, its a trick, we are ALL occupied.
He probably likes not being banned from UA-cam
Look up the video "dark gnosticism and Kabbalah" skip the insanely long intro.
J*ws are the smartest ethnicity in the World (average IQ for Askhenazi 106, and sephardic : 98) . Intelligence is 85% due to genes alones ( sources : Charles Murray, David Reich, Emil Kierkeguard and Robert Plomin). Therefore jews will tend to be overrepresented in bad things but also in great things such as Nobel prize, Art, Philosophy and wealth creations. Also it's natural thats j*ws protect their interest because they are a highly ethnocentric people which enabled them to survive to multiple threats by being resilient and generous beetwen one another. The solution to the *j*wish questions" is to incentive them to return in their civilisational homeland : Israël. Today, half of the j*ws are in Israël, in 2054 it will be different.
Another GREAT and very important presentation! Million thanks to you. This should be taught in our schools (or at least obligatory for all Catholics).
Also that is a good way to identify true political Left and Right - ask where some party or ideology would sit in the French National Assembly during the Revolution - on the right or the left side?
Lol "angry" atheist here, I will gladly watch your video :)
When The Cyclone of Doubt hits "The Iceberg"(Deep knowledge) waters.... Then you definitely have the post (modern) tropical DEPRESSION.
What the hell is Weemar?
The Weimar Republic, the regime that controlled Germany from 1918 to 1933.
I think that he meant Weimar. The German double vowel sound or diphthong is in this case the opposite to what the English-speaker would say - but I think that you know that. You probably speak German.
actually, liberalism in the classical political scale is in the center and to the right of social democracy. technically, liberalism is a right-wing ideology in relation to the left, labor movement.
Hitler was not a liberal. he was an outright imperialist. it would be a stretch to call Mussolini a liberal.
I understand your perspective. Liberalism is a broad term that I defined for my purposes at the beginning of this video as "liberal from traditional Western-Christian values and beliefs." Commentators below have offered a wide variety of differing definitions of the term liberal.
27:57 slides are still being cut off at the bottom
Am interested in your analysis of the integralists movement in south america
See what happens when you attack their sacred cows 😅
No. From Luther, to Wagner, to Nietzsche; those roots of National Socialism were not egalitarian.
As for the blend of capitalism and socialism, every major economy has that. Adding racism and bigotry to that is not left wing.
Liberation theology weeps.
Social Darwinism is certainly on the left
@@mick411411Nah cause we have the Pope on our side😎
What do you think the left is currently doing to "white people"?
If not bigotry?
False dialectic. NSDAP was neither liberal nor conservative.
Thank you
I prefer to use the term radical
Nazism is definitely not liberal or progressive and I would agree it wasn't conservative at least in terms of how we generally think of conservatism. It is a far right wing ideology though there is no way around that.
@@thedude9941 What the heck is "conservative" about murdering other people? Violence is always been an aspect of the extreme left.
@@thedude9941 Conservatism is literally contrary to radicalism.. It's radicalism that says "by any means necessary"..
Schopenhauer believed the will to live was responsible for all of suffering throughout existence, and wrote on ways in which we can seperate ourselves as best we can from the shackles of the will. So how is seeking to have a "tremendous will" seen as being in alignment with Schopenhauer's ideas about the will? Suffering is something that he most likely had an issue with himself, and Hitler as well as his Nazi ideaology brought forth a large amount of suffering in the world throughout the earlier portions of the 20th century. And helping a nation through the struggles of existence don't necessitate ruling with a racist and hateful iron fist with members of the same nation or country that don't fit a specific image you wish they embodied. It can be done through intellectual pursuits, like what Schopenhauer and other philosophers did, like writing, debates/conversations, researching, and philosophizing....
All these lefties that don't realize corporatism exists on both sides crack me up.
Maybe that if the victors write the history, it’s possible that the history that was written about this era isn’t exactly, exact. Considering the allies might have been the bad guys doesn’t have to mean Adolf was a good guy. If he was a man of the enlightenment, America was the full realization. He at least burned the LGBTQ books. We put them in our school libraries.
You lost me around 28 minutes when you seemed to deem it blasphemy to have a Sikh do their shtik at the Republican convention, did I miss the part where America isn't a non-denominational pluralistic believe or don't believe tolerant leave me alone do unto others as you would do unto yourself as a foundation of society embedded into its Constitution Republic?
It's funny he called, "Waheguru" a false God. When Sihks are Monotheists and worship the Supreme Being just under a different name.
But ultimately he seems to be some rad-trad Catholic that unironically advocates for Traditional Monarchy. So he literally believes America is bad for being a Republic. As such, his opinion should be discarded to the dustbin where Monarchy belongs.
There we go, the author of this video gets exactly what he deserves with this comment.
Behold, all the plundering done by your parents of an Europe weakened after two world wars, the “magic of capitalism” that stopped the great depression.
This is your reward, America will never be Christian again
@@EldenRingBuildsArchive Good. Christianity is nothing but a Judeo mind virus. You're literally worshipping the God of Israel and the Jewish messiah.
In the first five minutes you are making the mistake of using Liberalism, and Leftism as though they mean the same thing and they do not.
Liberalism is defined by individual freedoms, free market capitalism, and modernism. This doesn't fit Nazism or Fascism and definitely not left wing ideologies.
He’s mostly correct. You- like most of us had to do- have to unwind all the propaganda you’ve been calling education. Just because the winners get to write history doesn’t mean it’s true.
He is using 1789 definitions not 20th century definitions. Which makes sense given he’s a Church history channel.
As a communist (marxist-leninist), I agree. This man doesn't know what he is talking about.
No, youre juat dumb lol @Btn1136
The national socialist German worker's party (Nazi) is called Fascist because it is leftist collectivism going back to the meaning of Fasci, many sticks stronger together. Also he praised America subsidizing farmers saying it was great Fascism.
You do realize that Sanger's books were publicly burned by the Nazis?
That's because Germany understood, without babies, you can't have a nation. Sanger knew that too. The whole thing is a plan to weaken the West and US, to usher in a Communist takeover. The birthrate in the US won't support an effective military now. We will be slowly replaced by people who have lots of babies. I hope you won't mind living under Sharia law. It's already creeping in, under the guise of wokism.
You do realize Hitler combed his hair, tied his shoes, and drank water, don't you?
Knowing that liberal thinkers can despise other liberal thinkers, how does it matter if they burned her books?
Nazi idealogy did not agree with the use of contraceptives for those that they wished to reproduce. So she held sexual values the Nazis rejected and censored, but they were on the same page regarding the principles of eugenics in general. As shown, her periodical collaborated with Nazi officials.
Sanger was also Jewish
Isn't the Nazi socialist since it is within the name (the acronyms)
Please do some research. The Nazi party was a pagan, right wing fascist party. This is so defined given they were *conservative, *nationalist, *imperialist, *pro capitalist (very supportive of wealthy industrialists and private property).
NAZI party used the term ‘socialist’ to lean in on the popular movement of the time and cajole the working class into a faux nationalist workers party.
This is contradictory given existing socialist and communist parties of the time were ‘internationalist’ movements.
@@mick411411Hitler was actually against even having the term socialist in the name when he first joined the party, he just wasn't in control at the time and when he took control he found a way to use it to his advantage.
Authoritarian collectivism comes in different varieties with different characteristics such as communism(s), 'democratic' socialism(s) and national socialism (which happens to be more of a mix of things).
@@YtuserSumone-rl6sw Blinded and indoctrinated by secular liberalism’s apparatus of cultural hegemony to irrationally fear the collective.
Without community and a collective mindset you become a mere atomised individual. alienated and transformed by the process of reification, a siphoning away of your humanity. leaving a husk of a person, fixated on private property, pursuit of wealth and earthly trappings.
Lore of Hitler was Liberal (Enlightenment and the World Wars Series) momentum 100
And a Humanist.
Not really. Hitler intended to return to a pre-Christian world, he was not a modernist.
I certainly did find some takes a bit boomerish I do agree that NatSoc is a left wing ideology. I don't care about modern definitions you can't be right wing and materialist. While there is some window dressing that appears spiritual it's rooted in genetics and still waa hoisted upon the German people as a total state. There were some decent observations about finance and communism, but the solution was also materialist in is orientation.
It might help to compare Franco to Hitler in your follow up video to demonstrate further that Adolf was a lib.
I have only watched half of the video, im too lazy to watch the rest. I find a lot of what you say very wrong, especially your definitions of concepts.
The left and the right in the french government during the revolution isn't really what left and right is in political thought (i also disagree with then mainstream position which is just left is liberal and right is conservative) Leftist ideology is based on a socialist government and a liberal culture, while rightist ideology is based on a capitalist economy and conservative culture, this is where the modern thinking about right/left comes from they only look at the cultural part and not the economic and in current years both the leftists and rightists are capitaliats economically.
Fascism and National Socialism are neither Leftist nor rigthist ideologies, they are classified as "third position" because its economically socialist but culturally traditionalist/conservative. The political ideology of Catholic social teaching is also third position, so you would have to say that the catholic church teaches that there should be a modernist state. The only thing where fascism and National Socialism is wrong is that they secular (fascism) and pagan (national socialismy).
I hope to you respond
Also about the nationalism of national socialists.
The nationalism of the masonic revolutions existed so they could financially and culturally unite different regions into one made up Identity which is the same thing as globalism but on a smaller scale. Nationalism is just the necessary prerequisite for globalism. Regions with their unique culture and different languages get united into one identity and forced the speak a new language that their ancestors never spoke and become culturally secular abandoning the traditions of their ancestors (examples: unifications Germany and Italy, in France the country was already united but decentralised and culturally very diverse)
On the other hand there is the national socialist "nationalism" which is very different it wasn't based on some fake made up identity like Italian or french, it was based on the Germanic race and the indo European (Aryan) race as a whole and it's war with freemasonry and the Jews. The Germanic race is a real thing unlike the french identity which is about someone being from the country France (man made thing). the entire Germanic race is united by their origins of being Germanic and having a Germanic culture so it doesn't have to unite over a made up language and a culture foreign to most people. In National socialist ideology people are encouraged to practice their local culture and speak in their local dialects. This is the most traditional anti liberal idea there is
For example in France children would get beaten in schools if they spoke their local dialect and not standard french.
This unity is about being united against the enemy of freemasonic modernism and the Jews behind it and not the masonic unity existing so the elites can have more money and control.
I'm not a national socialist because it has a lot of pagan elements which make it inherently anti Christian, but it has a lot of good ideas which can also be found in Catholic social teaching/integralism.
Spot on comments. The video is really flawed and makes a lot of baseless assertions imo. Calling the natsocs liberal is just ludicrous
Fabian Society too, and Frankfurt School.
Hitler even called himself the bridegroom of germany. Think about that.
You are literally the first sound Christian youtuber that I encounter on UA-cam, but basically every second is decent, among Pagan youtubers.
Maybe it is the algorithm, or just accentically getting a wrong impression, yet I wonder, how decent your content was, if you weren't Christians, which seeems of hindering a lot or maybe Paganism upgrading one's intellect with 50% probability, of what else could such be said? I think that's too over the top in assumption of what changing ideology could change.
I swistched from Catholicism (I just never liked, let's leave it at that) to differerrent cults of either diets (veganism), personalities (Julien Sewering) and more to finally Polytheism, which just provides a "vibe", duties to see fulfilled, vices to be avoided and a balanced, fact-based view towards other nations and faiths with no concept of infidel and humans by their actions and not race or speech seen as worth, or less.
Dan, you are trying so hard to pronounce German words, but somehow it is not working out too well. Volk begins with a V, but it is pronounced in German as an English F. In German the W is pronounced as an English V. Ei in German word Geist has an a-e sound. It is a somewhat confusing diphthong for English-speakers. The spelling would be Volksgeist, beginning with the "f" sound and ending with an "ae + st" sound. Here is a good practice for you: Make the sign of the cross and say: "In Namen des Vaters und des Sohnes und des Heiligen Geistes. Amen" . Georg Hegel is not too difficult. The initial g is like the g in guts. I hope that helps.
I think you should call the episode “ Nazism was a liberal ideology” not left wing.
Not one these again…
'Fraid so
I was taught Austrian Man was a progressive of reactionary disposition, but I think we’re just splitting hairs at this point.
The Nazis were Catholic, and the Catholic church was heavily involved with the Axis throughout WWII.
Jesus, this video is trying so hard to lump classic liberalism with german idealism its burning a hole in my head. No. Marxism, Natso, most flavors of socialism and even Italian fasc to some degree are no athethestic, they are dialectic and gnostic, two ideas pulled straight out of Greek theosophical philosophy, primarily orphism and hermeticism, and directly competed with Abrahamic religion over the various spiritual reinterpretations usually centered around man as a creator, man as a reflection of god or the state as god.
Please review TiK and New Discourses lectures, as well as books like Hegel and the Hermetic tradition.
Can I assume that you agree with Pius IX on the "errors" he laid out in his Syllabus? You don't seem to be engaging with comments, so I'll hold back on making any further response, except to say that you've narrowed a topic that is wide and rich to the point of misrepresenting many of the strands of thought you take on here.
Can you provide an example of a strand of thought you believe I misrepresented? I agree with the broad strokes of the Syllabus but I don't take the document as infallible. It was an expression of the ordinary magisterium of the papacy which could theoretically be revised by future pontiffs as a result of further reflection on the topics, further understanding of the concepts, or changing societal circumstances.
@@historiaecclesiastica Thanks for responding. I've just seen this. I'll reply at more length as soon as possible (probably over the weekend, maybe before). Looking forward to a discussion. This topic is fascinating, Yours, Lew (a recovering Catholic in Ireland)
A most excellent topic and video presentation.
Do you mean Hegel not hiegel?
49:00 weird spiritual stuff hmm? Not very atheistic is it.
Great video, by the way 😁
(TLDR: In summary, while utopian socialism and Marxism share a concern for social justice and equality, they differ significantly in their methods-one being idealistic and peaceful, the other revolutionary and materialist. National Socialism, on the other hand, is an authoritarian, racist ideology fundamentally opposed to the egalitarian principles of both utopian socialism and Marxism. While the former two ideologies seek to uplift and unify people based on class or cooperative principles, National Socialism seeks to divide and oppress based on race and nationalism.)
When comparing utopian socialism, Marxism, and National Socialism (Nazism), it’s essential to recognize that while they all deal with visions of society and governance, their ideologies, methods, and goals are starkly different.
Utopian socialism, which emerged in the early 19th century, is characterized by an idealistic vision of society. Figures like Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Robert Owen believed in the peaceful creation of ideal communities based on cooperation, equity, and shared prosperity. Utopian socialists did not advocate for violent revolution; instead, they sought to transform society through moral persuasion, proposing communal living and cooperative enterprises as a solution to the ills of industrial society.
Marxism, developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mid-19th century, presents a more scientifically grounded approach to socialism. Marxism views history through the lens of class struggle, particularly between the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) and the proletariat (working class). Unlike utopian socialism, Marxism argues that socialism is an inevitable stage in human development, driven by the contradictions within capitalism. Marxists advocate for a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system by the working class, leading to a dictatorship of the proletariat, which would eventually result in a classless, stateless society.
National Socialism, or Nazism, is a far-right ideology that emerged in Germany in the early 20th century under Adolf Hitler. Unlike utopian socialism and Marxism, which focus on class and economic structures, National Socialism is rooted in extreme nationalism, racial purity, and the supremacy of the Aryan race. The Nazi ideology is fundamentally opposed to both forms of socialism. It rejects the idea of class struggle and instead emphasizes the unity of the nation, defined in racial terms. Nazis sought to eliminate what they saw as threats to the racial purity and strength of the nation, particularly targeting Jews, whom they blamed for many of Germany’s problems.
While utopian socialism and Marxism are concerned with achieving a more equitable and just society through either peaceful reform or revolutionary change, National Socialism is focused on establishing a hierarchical society based on racial superiority. Nazism employed state terror, propaganda, and violence to achieve its goals, leading to the horrors of the Holocaust and World War II. Unlike the utopian socialists' emphasis on cooperation and Marxism’s focus on class struggle, National Socialism glorified war, militarism, and the subjugation or extermination of those deemed inferior.
Labels. Just labels. We need to simplify. Good vs evil.
Socialist Germany was the progressive left not liberal,
Italy too Mussolini was a socialist excommunicated from the party, Mussolini was basically the Martin Luther of socialism
& fascism is the Protestant version of socialism
Ur fcking kidding right?
@@TcCt-pe7mt Mussolini considered himself an "authoritarian communist" and a Marxist and he described Karl Marx as "the greatest of all theorists of socialism."
@@TcCt-pe7mt in what would would that kind of person be considered right wing
@@NixonThr336ixa world where that person’s ideology evolves over time after they say that
@@folofus4815 maybe u should have a look before commenting -THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM
BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)
REJECTION OF INDIVIDUALISM AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATE
Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions
You are not distinguishing between the metaphysics of the Theory of Ideas: Descartes, Hobbes, and Hume which produced French Romanticism: Rousseau and German Idealism: Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Marx from the metaphysics of Liberalism: John Locke, Scottish Realism: Thomas Reid, James Beattie, James Oswald, and the Founders: Jefferson, Madison and James Wilson.
The metaphysics of Leftism and Liberalism could not be any more different and should not conflated.
If you do not account for Scottish Realism within the context of Classic American Liberalism then your critique is incomplete. To which you will have a far harder time delegitimizing Liberalism if you have to contend with the metaphysics of Thomas Reid.
Pssssst, You misspelled secular Judaism.
What a shame I really thought I liked this guy
Leftcoms are gonna agree with the title
You lost me when you proved your understanding of the cause of the American “civil war” is severely influenced by propaganda. Decent video up to that point.
Real but it showcases how his entire belief system on the matter is influenced by contemporary, and ironically, liberal academia. The natsocs were in no way liberal and a lot of the information in the video is straight up not factual and was part of Allied propaganda against the Reich.
To paraphrase:
'Everything left-wing is bad and everything bad is left-wing.
Subtext (that you are supposed to work out for yourself):
Therefore everything good is right-wing'.
Method :
If anything right-wing is bad then show that it is somehow linked to something left-wing.
Everything is somehow linked to everything else so this shouldn't be too hard !
Or just apply the rule, any philosophy pre-Renaissance is good, and everything that came with or after the Renaissance is fundamentally nazism. Lol.
Ironic when you consider how bloodthirsty the pre-Renaissance church was, and how most churches failed to resist the nazis.
It is worth noting that the Margaret Sanger award seems to be on hold. I wonder why? Could it be that although they love her, they seem to realize that this is not a good time to flaunt it. The second last recipient in 2015 was none other then congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
If you’re comparing Hitler to Dems of the last 20 yrs then yeah, I’m in agreement
Convert to eastern orthodoxy because though you are correct, the Roman Catholic position currently is hypocritical if you believe this is consistent with your world view.
This video is full of BS. Half of you couldn't tell the difference between fascism and socialism. "Playing left v right, liberalism and others is nothing but a jew game of divide and conquer. And you are continuing the game.
For one 'fascism" was the enemy of socialists. For two, "Nazi", neo-Nazi, and Nazism does NOT exist.
The Nazi epithet was conjured up by jew Konrad Heiden of the SDP. It was a political pun, a derogatory slang word.
NO self respecting German NOT EVER called themselves "Nazi's".
The term is a variant of the nickname that was used in reference to members of the SDP at the time “Sozi” (short for Sozialisten). “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin”, and derived from the fairly common name Ignatz. It would be like saying “nutsy”.
The origin of the word Nazi does not matter. Everyone understood that it referred to the NSDAP so, derogatory although it was, its use does not create confusion.
Based. Based. Based.
I take it you've watched Europa, the last battle.
National SOCIALISM=NSDP
Communism= International SOCIALISM
They are two wings of the same rotten bird
Third positionism shares traits of liberalism but in many ways it was it's own creature. Nationalistic socialism seems to have 100 shoehorns.
It was a Traditional belief that because Ham laughed at his Drunken Father Noah....his race would be cursed and be relegated as servants to his other brothers. Ham descendents are the Africans. I got this from a book written by a Catholic Bishop from Chicago in the 1920s. I do not have the book in front of me as I write but believe It IS entitled "the development of the Mass" or something like that.
Peak brainrot, some illiterate people call him socialist, other illiterate people call him liberal.
Conservative,socialist,fascist, liberal is not important. The important thing here is within the context of Germany at the time: he saved capitalism in Germany, was supported by the majority of the capitalists and he successfully crushed German workers revolution both its legacies and the revolution itself.
Brainrot. He was in fact a Socialist but thay doesn't make him a liberal either. Both you and the author of the video are very simple minded on this topic
Recently I learned of Hitler's admiration of mohammedism or islam. Apparently the head mufti of Jerusalem Al-Husseini (sometimes ending with a y) went to Berlin during the war and helped Hitler and Himmler raise troops for the SS among Moslems in Bosnia. He stayed there until the end and only went back to Jerusalem when the Nazis had lost the war. Hitler thought that mohammedism was more manly than Christianity as it encouraged the use of force and violence as a means to achieving an end. Could we not say that the appeal of mohammedism on the left and the hate for Jews and Israel is a manifestation of this Nazis-islam connection?
Yes he [and M. Luđer] was deeply influenced by that ideology, especially Sufi Gnosticism. LloydDeJongh has a fascinating & informative series on this if you're interested.👍
@@Vexx_Line_ Thanks, I will look up Lloyd de Jongh.
@@stephanottawa7890
No problem! Yeah it's crazy how much ☪️ has majority influenced certain ppl, groups, movements! Including H!łl€r, M. Luđer, Calvin, Fr€€ Msns/Shr!ners, the K³ (whose book is called the Kl0ran), Mar×/Engles, Thule Society, Manly P Hall, A. Crowley, hermeticism, certain enlightment thinkers etc etc. And it's interesting to learn where the symbology originated as well.
I think the left's recent love affair with Islam is partly pragmatic politics and partly a knee jerk affinity for anything that is opposed to Christianity.
National Socialism was an unstable combination of both liberal and conservative positions. Until Germany went to war with the USSR, it was routinely classified as a left wing movement, and Hitler seems clearly to have considered himself a man of the left. Indeed, although this is not widely known, prior to joining the DAP (later NSDAP), Hitler was active in the small Communist Party of Kurt Eisner, a Jew, which he departed from only after Eisner's assassination. (It is probably worth pointing out though that Eisner's local Communist Party was not aligned with Moscow.) However, Hitler clearly recognized the value of some traditional ways of living and of ordering society, so he was not a true doctrinaire Marxist either. A German - American who was close to Hitler prior to the 1932 election, but was later shouldered out by Goebbels, Himmler, and Goering, and who said that the party was on the verge of schism between left leaning and right leaning members by the time Hitler was released from prison after his failed coup attempt, memorably described Hitler as the hyphen that held National-Socialism together. But can Hitler be reasonably described as liberal?
Consider what liberalism is: the doctrine that the individual has rights against the state, and that these rights, although they may be unjustly suppressed by state power, are not granted by the state but are inherent in human nature or in natural law. It is difficult to imagine either National Socialists or Italian Fascists defending the idea that the individual has rights against the state so, no, neither of these movements was liberal by the strict usage of that word in political science. However, these movements certainly cannot be said to be conservative either. Both movements were modern or "mid-Modern" (a response to the distinguishing features of the industrial age which emerged from the exploitation of vast new energy reserves), secular (the state does not derive its legitimacy from the Church or religion), and revolutionary (imposing on society new and untested models of government). But liberal? Not in the strict sense of that word.
Hence why we would refer to Nazism and Fascism as "The Third Position" with elements of both sides there.
You really think that Hitler was liberal? That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard. Of course, as an authentic right-winger, he was deeply authoritarian and collectivist.
@@Tatopotatos America is a leftist idea and therefore those who embrace this American idea are necessarily leftist (liberal and individualist). Anglo-Saxons in general are just unable to be right-wingers. There are no right-wing philosophers in Anglo-Saxon tradition. Compare that to the German tradition (Hegel, Nietzsche, Schmitt, Spengler, etc.)
@@AlexanderLittlebears tik brought up background gnosticism for Hitler and overall he was a mixed and flawed human
Nationalism is good but that's basically it. Pan-german neopaganism is just silly
Sounds like he transgressed your blasphemy codes?
@@Tatopotatos Hitler was considered left wing in his own time, both in Europe and America - until he invaded the USSR. Overnight he got relabled a right winger.
@@delgande I do think that sometimes TIK tries to fit both Hitler and the NSDAP into a pre-imagined straight jacket. Also, his "Austrian economics explains it all" assumptions are unrealistic.
So taking over industry and having a authoritarian one man rule over courts and over business, is liberal? I understand that he is implicated in the tradition in some sense, but i think you are twisting words to make it fit if i'm honest, interesting but i don't really buy the significance. Liberalism is about letting societies and individuals developing with the government being as hands of as possible, and governments should mostly deal with the issues related to an essential uncontrolled society, meaning security, having laws and enforcement and so on, the point of those being to mitigythe dangers of having a society with no central control for the most part, thats the core to me, that the government should not be in the driver seat for most of the development of a society, only control where it is necessary and beneficial, that is very different from enlightened despotism even if the ideal is kept in mind. Directing chabge from the top down is not a new idea, its the old conservative idea behind states and behind religious institutions for the most part. At least with respect to this aspect of Liberalism, there is no solid connection i would say.
@@monkerud2108 Hello. My next video about fascism responds to your disagreement about the definition of terms.
Or maybe liberalism is right wing.
Left and Right have the same false presuppositions that came out of the Enlightenment.
I believe that you are incorrect in your history. Hitler began his campaign with ' christian' values. Hitler followed a military structure. There was a 'socialism' with various stratus. He only dropped the church as they got in his way. He was Authoritarian Conservative. Fighting change! Making Germany Great Again.
Hitler was simply a dictator. Far from liberal. Perhaps socialist, but that is a stretch.
Are you kidding? "The truth" is always somewhere in the middle. Hitler himself was probably gay.. Look it up.
I read his work and he definitely was a socialist and sees himself as someone who corrected Marx. He wanted socialism for his people, but his understanding of economics and desire for one Europe to be able to face down America is why he chose the path he did. Can't escape his conception of the volk being riddled with socialist thought.
The Nazis used the word "socialist" in the name of their party, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), or the National Socialist German Workers' Party, for several reasons, despite the fact that their ideology and policies were radically different from traditional socialism. A central reason was that it served as tactical rhetoric to appeal to the working class and those who were dissatisfied with the economic situation in Germany after World War I. By including "socialist" in the party's name, they could attract voters who might otherwise have supported traditionally socialist or communist parties, which were strong forces in Germany at the time.
However, the Nazis' use of the word "socialist" did not refer to classical Marxist socialism, which is based on the idea of class struggle and the abolition of private property. Instead, their "socialism" referred to a form of nationalism that emphasized unity and cooperation among all Germans, regardless of class. They spoke of a national community where class conflicts would be overcome by everyone working for the good of the nation rather than for their own class interests.
The Nazis criticized both capitalism and communism, but in a way that suited their own ideology. They opposed international capitalism, which they linked to Jews and which they believed had betrayed the German people, but they also did not support communism's goals of class struggle and collective ownership. Instead, they advocated for a "third way," where the state would control the economy for the benefit of the German people, but where private ownership and businesses would be allowed as long as they served the nation's interests.
The Nazis' use of "socialism" also contributed to creating confusion and disorientation among voters and political opponents. By mixing socialist rhetoric with a nationalist and racist agenda, they could exploit widespread feelings of dissatisfaction and uncertainty in society. Despite using the word "socialist," the Nazis completely rejected the fundamental principles of Marxism and traditional socialism. Hitler and the Nazi leaders were strongly anti-Marxist and saw Marxism as a Jewish conspiracy to destroy nations. Their "socialism" had nothing to do with class struggle or proletarian internationalism but was instead focused on strengthening and uniting under the German nation and race.
It wasn't economical socialism, it was the idea that protecting the future generation and the German heritage, free from subversive elements. He was a nationalist of the highest degree. Idk how that is liberal
"Hitler began his campaign with ' christian' values."
Of course he did. He is willing to use any tool that was available to him at that time to enact his revolutionary vision. In his own view he was fighting against the Christian tradition and his way of doing that was to join the protestants to rally against the catholic church at first.
This is the normal liberal temperament of acting against tradition as a counter -culture...He started to deeply dislike Christianity when he started to learn how much Christianity restrain his revolutionary visions( he faced very strong objection from Christian religious leaders both protestants and catholic).
That's why he started to look for a new one that won't restrain his actions and he found out a religion that suits his taste - IsZlam. This is evident from his commentary about his wishes that Germany was a IslZamic state.
Hitler supposedly used the term "removal" of the Jews ...Sanger used the term "exterminate".....I am not a Hotler apologist but these terms do not have the same meaning
Originally, extermination did not strongly imply kill, usually just removal. For example, the Missouri governor's Mormon extermination order did not mean kill all the Mormons, just expel them from the state. Frank Baum's advocacy of Indian "extermination" meant the same thing, expulsion rather than genocide. Once could think of extermination as equivalent to elimination, not necessarily requiring anyone's death. I don't know when the meaning changed to the modern connotation of killing off.
@@michaels4255 Isabella la Católica....Queen of Spain "expelled" the Jews from Spain right before she sent Christopher Columbus to the New World. If one knows the conditions which caused her to do that... we can Sympathize with other leaders that took steps to protect thier culture. The Modern man has dificulty understanding the Catholic culture that was Europe....and régimes in the post modern world that had remnants of that Old World Christendom.
This guy is LEGIT.
OK, I’m a liberal then. I will continue to be farther right than any Christian or capitalist but ok … you can think whatever you want
Did the Nazis teach tom pain?
Waheguru is a Sikh was of saying "God". As a Catholic, I have to respect other religions in the sense that if they honour God and act justly, I have an obligation to respect them (but not agree with them in all aspects). Certainly I would prefer to hear the invocation of the Triune God, but that rarely happens even in Christian circles. Is that not the reason why the Gloria Patri was thrown out of the Mass as in the Novus Ordo? How many so-called Christian prayers end in a Trinitarian doxology or at least with the phrase "through Jesus Christ, Our Lord"? That is one reason why I am not too crazy about the petitions of the people prayers in the Novus Ordo. They seem to be the door through which some very strange and anti-Trinitarian theology comes into the church. I would prefer nothing instead of the nonsense that I have heard. Best go from the Creed directly to the Offertory in my humble opinion.
Liberal is not a synonym for totalitarian. It's the opposite. And no, postmodern radical left is also not synonym for liberal. And neither is national socialism.
We live in the world we live in, because Germany lost both WWI and WWII! If Germany had won, then the world we live in would have been a very different place, and we would not been enjoying the fruits of LIBERALISM! I hope you can understand what I am saying....
If Germany had won we would have gotten the Capitalist vs Socialist Cold War, just like we did, only the borders would be further West. It would have ended exactly the same as it did as well, maybe even sooner, depends on whether the nazis could have managed their economy better in peacetime than the Soviets. Little evidence for that. Socialists are exclusively bad with money, it's a job prerequisite.
His party put the nations interests above the individual. That caused great misery. They also also resisted international central banks that today have more control over matters than the elected leaders. So in a way nationalism resisted the globalists dual state. It contributed to a quicker rebound from the depression until 1938/39 when territorial conquest drove up % of GDP going to military spending.
Waiting for James Lindsay to lose his shit.
this sounds like euro politics.
Incidentally, I find the Sikhs to be mainly conservative supporters, hard-working and very level-headed. We need more of them (and may be less of some other groups). Unfortunately they are not all that numerous even in their homeland and do not have a state of their own.
Well his party was literally called National Socialist 🤷♂
Stalin's regime is referred to as Socialist Nationalism 🤷♂
Changing the order of the addends doesn't change the result 🧐
He was the good guy
Was... you mean is still...
accusing the nat sees of liberalism while parading pre adamites in priest robes hahahahahahah
Well sure. The word "socialist" in the name of his political party (National Socialist German Workers Party aka NAZI) was always clue.
Constantine, the son of the sub god, burned alive the real Christians that would not accept his version of Christianity that he made the empire's official imperial cult. Notice it's all about new king and king of the world. And ran by Jesus' killers
omg this is ridiculous
I like to think that he was a true fence sitting moderate 😏
Gnostic
Enlightenment is nothing special, a Prepetual enlightenment is more normal
Karl MARX is German? Lol. Ok.
Did the guy in the video call Karl Marx German? Not jewish lol?
Your thesis is not only wrong, it’s completely ridiculous! You can’t even pronounce “Weimar” correctly. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Christ, you could not Tie yourself in a bigger knot trying to get around reality. Please explain Franco’s Spain next.
Fascism is the violent pushback against everything you claim it represents.
Japan was imperialist
Bull.
Pronounced Ree card Vogner. Obviously you never heard of him. I think I've heard enough here.
At least he didn't do a "NEE-CHEE" on us.
Vorspiel Das rheingold!
Yah this guy doing revisionism
No! National Socialism vs International Socialism are very different. National Socialism was a petty-minded ultra-right wing ideology that also went for racial superiority of the 'white man', the right to colonize, subjugate, enslave and exploit other people. That is typical of right wing ideologies. International Socialism has never propounded these ideas. BTW, one can also say that the kibbutzim culture in Israel was 'socialist' except that too went for a ethnic / racial argument, making this too a right wing ideology!
"This is typical of right wing ideologies" is circular reasoning. This is the arbitrariness of the left-right spectrum that I am critiquing here. In this series, I demonstrate that the elements of Nazism that you just described emanate from liberal philosophy, not conservative western values.
All flavors of socialism hail the state as supreme. An enlightened liberalism posits the individual above the state. The American Bill of Rights demonstrates this most clearly.
Natsoc ideology never advocates for any of the things you listed as its characteristics.
No