Democratic Socialism is National Socialism

:0)

😂

No, socialism is left wing, facism is just honest socialism.

Bruh.

Two different sides of the same coin. Ever hear of Sunni and Shiites? Same religion hate each other to death.

Ever hear of Catholics and Protestants? Same thing, except Shiites are just Zoroastrains in disguise and Sunnis came out of Catholic & Pagan Arabs.

The sects are divided more by what originated them in the first place rather than idealogy - and that was their culture. Catholics originated in Rome. Where on the Euro map are Catholics primarily today? Likewise it's no coincidence that the less centralized less hierarchical Protestantism is mainly a Teutonic thing, the uncivilized barbarians of yore from the hinterlands.

Same way that Shiites are mainly Iranic, the sect framed by their roots as well as a revulsion for their Arab invaders. There are exceptions (Kurds, most Afghans). Zoroastrainism shaped that sect of Islam, just like Roman Paganism as well as Mithraism (itself also a Iranian introduction) shaped Catholicism.

The don't hate each other over religion, they hate each other because they've hated each other since they emerged out of distinct ethnicities in prehistory and starting treading into each other's lands.

Wrong again, they denounce each other over their belief of who was the prophets rightful successors. So it is absolutely religious.

*le sigh*

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.
Again, and try to follow - take all the time you need:

The sects are divided more by what originated them in the first place rather than idealogy - and that was their culture. Catholics originated in Rome. Where on the Euro map are Catholics primarily today? Likewise it's no coincidence that the less centralized less hierarchical Protestantism is mainly a Teutonic thing, the uncivilized barbarians of yore from the hinterlands.

Same way that Shiites are mainly Iranic, the sect framed by their roots as well as a revulsion for their Arab invaders. There are exceptions (Kurds, most Afghans). Zoroastrainism shaped that sect of Islam, just like Roman Paganism as well as Mithraism (itself also a Iranian introduction) shaped Catholicism.

The don't hate each other over religion, they hate each other because they've hated each other since they emerged out of distinct ethnicities in prehistory and starting treading into each other's lands.

As usual your arrogant ignorance tries to make it solely about race, rather than a schism in religious belief. That’s what it is, plain and simple it’s a religious dispute over their faith that they kill each other over. Shiites attack Sunnis and vice versa. They attack each other over interpretation. Ethnic rivalries may be part of the religious dispute but the religious dispute is the driver. Catholics and Protestants did it for a couple centuries.

Where are the most Catholics?

By total number Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, United States, then Italy (where Rome is)

By percentage of population Poland, Croatia and Portugal have a higher population than Italy. Unless of course you are referring to Vatican City. There it’s 100 % Catholic.

Race, ethnicity samey same for you because it’s all about hate and your personal anger issues. So there’s a lot of Catholics in Italy? So what? There’s a lot of eskimos in Canada.

Many Arab countries have Shiite populations. So in that nation is it a regional conflict. No the point is you dismissed that it was a religious schism yet that is exactly what it is.

“Sectarianism based on this historic dispute intensified greatly after the Battle of Karbala, in which Husayn ibn Ali and some of his close partisans, including members of his household, were killed by the ruling Umayyad Caliph Yazid I, and the outcry for revenge divided the early Islamic community, albeit disproportionately, into two groups, the Sunni and the Shia. This is known today as the Islamic schism.[1]”

There’s that pesky word “schism”

No, guy, that would be on the one who frames everything in those terms and utilizes it as a refrain. You know, as you keep doing.

There is only ONE Arab country.
Ironically, unlike the people in the rest of the region we call erroneously call "Arab" (and used to call Turks till a century ago) regardless of their ethnicity/background, we refer to them as "Saudis" instead.

Speaking of ironic, it is funny how you keep trying to counter the simple basic fact that I stated by verifying it. Try reading your source material again. Apply to a map as needed.

Thanks for playing.

“There is only ONE Arab country.
Ironically, unlike the people in the rest of the region we call erroneously call "Arab" “

The Arab World consists of 22 countries in the Middle East and North Africa: Algeria, Bahrain, the Comoros Islands, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Mauritania, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

Hmmm seems like the scholars refute your one Arab country claim. Just stop, you can’t keep losing the argument like this it’s pathetic.

False.
Again, and try to pay attention, the only true Arabs are Saudis, albeit small pockets are found in various surrounding countries, but not majorities. The previous two decades alone should have taught you that the Iraq the US invaded is majority Shiite, and that those people are mainly of Iranic roots, as are also the Kurds (who incidentally are Sunnis) hence their allying with Iran and our worries of Iran in effect gradully expanding into them.

Djibouti and Somalia? Might as well toss in Ethiopia. People of that region had been formally classified as Semites and Caucasion. Not lately tho.

In case you haven't heard, Egypt has had it's own massive population thousands of years before these other countries even existed, it didn't switch to Nubian or Greek or Roman or Arab just because it was invaded and taken over by those people, although it was part of the true Europe until that.

See how it works?

You're referring to the so-called Arab WORLD, a sphere, a culture, a commonality of language and religion SPREAD by Arabs which has been applied to various people lumped with them, just as English speaking countries have been lumped together as Anglo or Brit, regardless of the various ethnicities of other inhabitants. The indigenous populations of those countries did not up and disappear when Arabs invaded.

Your lame misfire of a forced would-be Appeal to Authority is way off. Try looking up their enthno-history. Oh, a cite your source. You thought Iranians were Arabs also till you had to copypaste a response before that told you otherwise, remember?

Conservative logic: black people are Nazis

Liberal Logic black people are white supremists. What the difference?

Zelensky too!

The Ukrainians have a history of support for Nazis. Doesn’t mean they are all Nazis, just like it doesn’t mean white Americans are but you call them that anyway. Funny how you can separate that for Ukraine and denounce the USA for the exact same thing.

Many countries had Nazi parties. Ever heard of Austria? Many Ukrainians fought for the Nazis against the Russians and many joined their version of the Nazi party. So yes there were, and by most accounts, Are Nazis in Ukraine. Sorry for your historical illiteracy, but the truth is the truth. I know that’s not something you find important but it is what it is.

So you admit you were wrong, that’s refreshing. We established there were more Nazis than just Germany and that many Ukrainians fought for and with the Nazis despite your imperious claims. Like most lefties you spout claims without facts or in direct contradiction to the facts.

Far Far Right Wing*

Rent free? Hardly. If you have an issue with Obama being used in meme, talk to the OP.

Anyway, saying something doesn't make it true. The Nazis were definitely left wingers. Well they had some ideas that would probably be considered right wing today, the majority of their policies were left wing. While they didn't officially nationalize industries, they could demand anything they wanted of them, and if they didn't come through, then they would seize that industry. Also, it's quite telling that much of the left-wing academia in 1930s America praised the Nazis, at least until they started to invade other countries.

Gonna need a source on left-wing academia praising the Nazis

They sure as f**k weren't liberals

And they sure as f**k weren't conservatives.

See? I can do that too. But if you actually look at history of the Nazi party, much of their policies, ideals, and morals were quite similar to that of today's left.

"But if you actually look at history of the Nazi party, much of their policies, ideals, and morals were quite similar to that of today's left."

Lie what? Hyper-nationalism? Promoting "family values" like women raising children and staying at home?

Like what? Expanding governmental power? Censorship of opposing viewpoints? Political Violence?

We can do this all day.

An American left wing academic of the time was H.G. Wells, who said, among other things, that his students should be "progressive fascists" and "enlightened Nazis".

"Censorship of opposing viewpoints? Political Violence?"

Neither one of those is unique to the left. Both sides can do that, and both sides DO do that

Yes. But leftists do it much more.

Also, I noticed you left off the part about expanding governmental power.

"Yes. But leftists do it much more."

Can you prove that?

"Also, I noticed you left off the part about expanding governmental power."

The left does do that quite a bit, but again, so does the right

Who does Twitter censor more, conservatives or liberals?
What about Facebook?
Youtube?
Google?

LMAO! No, it's really only left. RINOs, maybe, but not right wingers. Hence, you know, the Gadsden flag.

I'm curious about this.
Post the numbers.

Whose ads do I get all the f**king time on YouTube and Facebook, even though I’m not right-wing at all?

That’s just authoritarianism, not leftism. 🤦🏼‍♂️

Wells’ bizarre suggestion was that progressives become fascists/Nazis who shift the debate away from dictatorship.

It's true.

You just have to use any reputable scholarly source.

The Nazis were the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, Period. My college professor wrote our textbook and he told us about that. Hitler made speeches proudly proclaiming to be a Socialist. It is what it is.

He condemned Marxian socialism. He believed in racial hierarchy, not solidarity and class struggle.

You mean your commie college professor? They were conservative socialists. They did not believe in private property nor civil rights. They were the other end of the socialist spectrum.

It says Marxian Socialism. National Socialism is all about property, state property not private.

Nazis started the privatization trend decades before the neoliberals did it.

So they were just neoliberals ahead of their time

Just keep clicking them ruby reds together, eventually you'll be back in Oz. Or is it Wonderland?

I should post a screenshot of the "Rohan Incident"

"Bluessol

Corporations serving the state? Sounds like the Democratic Party now."

If only we could be so lucky and such ignorance spewed naivete could actually shape reality.

In Corporatism, corporations don't serve the state, the state serves them, or rather, partners up with them. It's not something that gradually took over the GOP, it's something the GOP has stood for since their Federalist Party roots.

Corporations in Nazi German served the state and the state scratched their backs. Republicans have been big supporters of big corp in the past. Now it’s the democrats who are big supporters of big tech and big corp so it’s just a fight over which sides corps gain supremacy. Dems want the ones they are invested in to do so and republicans want theirs. I’m not a Republican, especially not a Rino who are the reason we are where we are now along with the looney leftist America haters.

Again, your ignorance proves your ignorance is your ignorance.

You CAN look this up, Rohan, starting with a simple dictionary for the terms that you have trouble understanding.

Semantics don’t change the fact that privately held companies were controlled by the government for the benefit of the state. Transferring some publicly held entities to private hands before a major war had many purposes much too complicate for the tiny minds of slogan sellers.

No, they were Corporatists, like the Republican Party since (before) its inception and the USA for quite a while now, and China as well as basically every other nation today.

Corporations serving the state? Sounds like the Democratic Party now.

Corporatists?

LMAO! 😂

A socialist is a socialist is a socialist. TO paraphrase SHakespeare- a turd by any other name would smell the same. They all stink.

Lame

Sorry, but Vox and CNN are not reputable ;)

My brother in Christ, you cited a right-wing British tabloid newspaper.

There's no way to escape bias. But generally CNN and Vox aren't that accurate.