Apparently these are the people going to start a communist revolution
(media.patriots.win)
Comments (74)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
This. Hitler wasn't exactly a bad ass - scrawny - weak - vegan painter.. And he had no problem taking over Europe. Physical strength is not the key to revolutions. We are not living in the dark ages.
Nowadays you need large numbers of men with guns willing to die for your cause. This is why radical Islam can take over countries. You don't need a majority - just enough. Even 5% will do it. And that's for a violent revolution.
For a color revolution you don't even need violence. People will vote in Communism. See Venezuela for where we are going. We can go Communist without a shot being fired. Military and Cops will have absolutely no issues implementing Communism.. This has been proven many times in the past by a great many countries.
Agree with everything, but Hitler is a very bad example. He started off fighting off the exactly same commie / antifa scum that had started preying on the falling apart Weimer republic. Too bad he turned very dark later on, but his ambitions were only to reunite Germany and stop communism.
I would rather use the example of Lenin and Trotskty. Infact, its the perfect example. They came in after the first wave of revolution had happened (White revolution?) and then got rid of them all and took over the country, killing almost 40 million people.
Bolshevik revolutionaries and antifa/blm are the same bullshit, just different periods of time.
Yep. Everyone should look up Antifa's role in the German civil war right after World War I. They've been around for years.
Remember that during this time period Communisim and National socialism (NAZI's) were just two flavors of socialism in direct conflict with each other for dominance.
spez: Just pointing that out as most lefties will insist they are polar opposites. They are not.
They both had "socialism" in name, but its a real stretch to say they were two flavors of same thing. Going into this does not fetch us anything of value as far as arguing with the leftists, but is nevertheless interesting from a curiosity perspective only. My real point is that the economic policies of NSDAP and their military outcomes should be decoupled and one should not be used to demonise the other. Using Nazis to make any point is bound to be full of logic holes because our understanding of that period is highly warped.
Communists didn't care about any economic goals. Socialism was just a tool to bring about authoritarianism. NSDAP on the other hand had no option but to use real socialism to pull Germany out of the depths of economic despair created after the WWI with no sovereign assets to back their currency. So instead of being a tool it was the solution, at least at that point.
Communist socialism's fundamental tenet was centralised production and no private property. NSDAP on the other hand did not have either of this. Infact private property thrived and people started getting rich for the first time in a long time.
NSDAP philosophy essentially was - when there is no gold to back your currency, the work people perform should form the basis for your currency and it worked beautifully. People who are critical of federal reserve system and fiat based currency often agree that something else of real value must back the currency. Gold or precious metals do not have the flexibility to grow with the economy, but a currency backed by the labour of the people potentially could be the exact solution. NSDAP showed this works - albeit in a small scale. We never had the chance to see whether it scales or holds in long term.
The way I differentiate socialism under Communism vs NSDAP is Equity vs Equality. Communism aims for equal outcome (what the BLM/Antifa is screaming for right now), but the NSDAP system provided oppurtunity for those who were willing to work. If anything, their economic policies were more right than left.
Hitler wasn't vegan. He was a pescetarian. One of his favorite dishes was trout in butter sauce. And I read somewhere that the only reason he didn't eat red meat was because he'd been gassed in WW1 and it permanently damaged his digestive system -- no idea if that was true or not.
Duly noted. Thanks for the historical info Pino. I thought he was a vegetarian.
There is not a shred of historical evidence saying Hitler was a vegan. Veganism came about because of the cruelty of factory farming. Before that many people were just vegetarians.