Gabriel Dimitrov wrote a multi-article series in which he refuted many claims made in "Europa: The Last Battle". While Dimitrov is on the political left and even uses the word "QAnon" as an insult, his articles are still useful, as he provided actual evidence of his claims (meticulously cited with sources) rather than making unfounded assertions or just declaring something debunked out of hand.
He even admitted that some aspects of the documentary (such as bringing attention to the Holodomor) are admirable, although it doesn't change the extreme level of inaccuracies to be found in the documentary.
First sentence in this so called debunk - "the video starts with some guy talking Qanon shit about pedophiles, people in power, finance and these sort of stuff". Wow, brilliant! Maybe he'll "debunk" Epstein next, because he was jewish and it's "Qanon shit".
Think I'll pass on this "debunk" by an obvious shill who sites the commies at Wikipedia of all places to prove his points (LMAO). Besides promoting anti-Q material here, you should also be banned for thread sliding.
First sentence in this so called debunk - "the video starts with some guy talking Qanon shit about pedophiles, people in power, finance and these sort of stuff".
I warned about that. As I put it:
While Dimitrov is on the political left and even uses the word "QAnon" as an insult, his articles are still useful, as he provided actual evidence of his claims (meticulously cited with sources) rather than making unfounded assertions or just declaring something debunked out of hand.
Think I'll pass on this "debunk" by an obvious shill who sites the commies at Wikipedia of all places to prove his points (LMAO).
He cites ways more than Wikipedia, though. He posted a lot of solid evidence from many sources.
On a political spectrum, in terms of authoritarianism (more government to less government), it would look something more like this (top is left, moving down moves right):
Dictatorship
Monarchy
Communism (International socialism)
Facism (national socialism... Nazis)
Classical liberalism
Libertarianism
Anarchy
The constitutional federal republicanism of the USA is in that classical liberalism range. It's only "far right" from the perspective of those to the left of it, e.g. socialists.
Authoritarianism requires the strictest adherence to government, while depriving personal liberties. While it's true that hypothetically, a righteous monarchy could be the best protector if the people, unfortunately historical tendency indicates that far more often than not, absolute monarchs deprive subjects of liberties much more than the government of a constitutional republic. No King but King Jesus. So until His return, we avoid monarchies as much as possible.
Fascism and national socialism are one in the same, albeit with different originators. Both advance collective nationalism, under one party rule with a dictatorial leader. The common claim is that "national socialism = Nazism" and contains an inherent racial superiority agenda. Both assertions are incorrect. Nazism was a type of national socialism that did embrace a German sense of white Aryan superiority. But not all national socialist groups do. You could just as well have a national socialist movement in an African country, or an Asian country. But most importantly, the key difference between Fascism and Communism, is that the latter advances international collectivism. Hence, why the Germans and Italians during the 1930s-40s, as fascists, so vehemently opposed the soviet communists, especially when the Jewish Bolshevik element was considered. And yet, they were all totalitarian socialists...
Yes, neoliberalism is a bastardization of classical liberalism. This is why we shouldn't really call Democrats liberals anymore, but rather Leftists, because they pretty much threw the whole individual liberties thing out the window, in favor of "protecting" collective "rights" by way of stronger authoritarian government control.
Now, consider how Nazi's during WW2 were fighting Communists (Bolsheviks, US). Despite anyones feelings about Nazism, it is a far right authoritarian/totalitarian political system which aimed to put German workers first and to cleanse Germany's institutions of Communist infiltration.
The Nazis were far left. It's right there in the name: National Socialism. Hitler was able to convince the people of Germany that he was the opposite of the communists and their only hope to avoid falling into communism, but it was just a ploy. Think of it sort of like Mitt Romney or John McCain pretending to be the only hope against leftists, then multiply it by 10. National Socialism was only slightly less socialistic than full-blown communism. The "National" part meant that it wasn't globalist, but neither are all communist governments (the CCP is very nationalistic, for example).
Hitler hating Stalin's brand of communism didn't mean that he wasn't socialist himself. Communists/socialists often hate each other due to differences in ideology (just look at the rivalry between Stalin and Trotsky).
Here's an excellent explanation of how National Socialism is indeed socialism (warning: it's from Razorfist, who uses a lot of strong language, but is brilliant at arguing his points).
If it is, the line represents level of government control, not some nebulous "left-right" dichotomy with seemingly arbitrary beliefs attributed to each side, where which ever way you go you end up with a governmental tyranny.
The Nazis were far left and also fought and killed the Communists? Makes sense to me. You are definitely wise and not being confused by one word having multiple meanings across time and language.
The German people, particularly the male youth, were fodder to Hitler's asinine war fantasies. So no, Commies were not the only enemies. Nor were the Commies an imminent enough invasion threat to force Hitler to invade first. That's historical revisionism at its worst. Hitler succeeded in effectively emasculating German society for post WWII docility. Insert sarcastic golf clap.
Except he never wanted war, and made called for peace on several occasions that all fell on deaf ears. How narratively convenient that’s never mentioned in the history books.
Gabriel Dimitrov wrote a multi-article series in which he refuted many claims made in "Europa: The Last Battle". While Dimitrov is on the political left and even uses the word "QAnon" as an insult, his articles are still useful, as he provided actual evidence of his claims (meticulously cited with sources) rather than making unfounded assertions or just declaring something debunked out of hand.
He even admitted that some aspects of the documentary (such as bringing attention to the Holodomor) are admirable, although it doesn't change the extreme level of inaccuracies to be found in the documentary.
Here are the links.
https://exposedshroudsofhistory.quora.com/Debunking-Europa-The-Last-Battle-episode-1-if-you-don-t-know-what-Europa-The-Last-Battle-is-its-basically-the-protoco
https://exposedshroudsofhistory.quora.com/debunking-episode-3-of-Europa-the-last-battle-this-episode-is-basically-a-very-cringe-biography-of-Hitler-and-his-rise
https://exposedshroudsofhistory.quora.com/Debunking-episode-7-of-Europa-The-Last-Battle-if-you-want-a-short-summary-of-the-episode-it-s-basically-The-Allies-al
https://www.quora.com/profile/Gabriel-Dimitrov-12/Debunking-Episode-8-of-Europa-The-Last-Battle-this-one-is-probably-the-worst-episode-of-the-entire-series-its-a-2-hour
Also, keep the following in mind:
u/#q936
u/#q938
u/#q1269
First sentence in this so called debunk - "the video starts with some guy talking Qanon shit about pedophiles, people in power, finance and these sort of stuff". Wow, brilliant! Maybe he'll "debunk" Epstein next, because he was jewish and it's "Qanon shit".
Think I'll pass on this "debunk" by an obvious shill who sites the commies at Wikipedia of all places to prove his points (LMAO). Besides promoting anti-Q material here, you should also be banned for thread sliding.
Now refute the Q drops he posted.
I warned about that. As I put it:
He cites ways more than Wikipedia, though. He posted a lot of solid evidence from many sources.
On a political spectrum, in terms of authoritarianism (more government to less government), it would look something more like this (top is left, moving down moves right):
Dictatorship
Monarchy
Communism (International socialism)
Facism (national socialism... Nazis)
Classical liberalism
Libertarianism
Anarchy
The constitutional federal republicanism of the USA is in that classical liberalism range. It's only "far right" from the perspective of those to the left of it, e.g. socialists.
Authoritarianism requires the strictest adherence to government, while depriving personal liberties. While it's true that hypothetically, a righteous monarchy could be the best protector if the people, unfortunately historical tendency indicates that far more often than not, absolute monarchs deprive subjects of liberties much more than the government of a constitutional republic. No King but King Jesus. So until His return, we avoid monarchies as much as possible.
Fascism and national socialism are one in the same, albeit with different originators. Both advance collective nationalism, under one party rule with a dictatorial leader. The common claim is that "national socialism = Nazism" and contains an inherent racial superiority agenda. Both assertions are incorrect. Nazism was a type of national socialism that did embrace a German sense of white Aryan superiority. But not all national socialist groups do. You could just as well have a national socialist movement in an African country, or an Asian country. But most importantly, the key difference between Fascism and Communism, is that the latter advances international collectivism. Hence, why the Germans and Italians during the 1930s-40s, as fascists, so vehemently opposed the soviet communists, especially when the Jewish Bolshevik element was considered. And yet, they were all totalitarian socialists...
Yes, neoliberalism is a bastardization of classical liberalism. This is why we shouldn't really call Democrats liberals anymore, but rather Leftists, because they pretty much threw the whole individual liberties thing out the window, in favor of "protecting" collective "rights" by way of stronger authoritarian government control.
I think that you will find a good explanation here: https://youtu.be/oI1MaaTKfRc
The Nazis were far left. It's right there in the name: National Socialism. Hitler was able to convince the people of Germany that he was the opposite of the communists and their only hope to avoid falling into communism, but it was just a ploy. Think of it sort of like Mitt Romney or John McCain pretending to be the only hope against leftists, then multiply it by 10. National Socialism was only slightly less socialistic than full-blown communism. The "National" part meant that it wasn't globalist, but neither are all communist governments (the CCP is very nationalistic, for example).
Hitler hating Stalin's brand of communism didn't mean that he wasn't socialist himself. Communists/socialists often hate each other due to differences in ideology (just look at the rivalry between Stalin and Trotsky).
Here's an excellent explanation of how National Socialism is indeed socialism (warning: it's from Razorfist, who uses a lot of strong language, but is brilliant at arguing his points).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-SLqdhkvJo
All correct but Nazism is far left. Socialism is right in the name. They’re not trying to hide it.
What if the political spectrum....isnt a 1 dimensional line???? GASP.
If it is, the line represents level of government control, not some nebulous "left-right" dichotomy with seemingly arbitrary beliefs attributed to each side, where which ever way you go you end up with a governmental tyranny.
"Strength of government" IS far left.
That's the real spectrum. It's about government control. Anarchy on the right, total control on the left.
You don't go further and further right, leading to less and less government control, and then end up in a governmental tyranny.
The Nazis were far left and also fought and killed the Communists? Makes sense to me. You are definitely wise and not being confused by one word having multiple meanings across time and language.
The German people, particularly the male youth, were fodder to Hitler's asinine war fantasies. So no, Commies were not the only enemies. Nor were the Commies an imminent enough invasion threat to force Hitler to invade first. That's historical revisionism at its worst. Hitler succeeded in effectively emasculating German society for post WWII docility. Insert sarcastic golf clap.
Except he didnt start the war. And sued for peace over a half dozen times while the west said lolno.
Wrong.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iuTCPG5b1jxc/
Except he never wanted war, and made called for peace on several occasions that all fell on deaf ears. How narratively convenient that’s never mentioned in the history books.
u/#q1941
u/#q1954
u/#q4635