Was Nazism Right Wing or Left Wing? An Answer From History

[@metatronyt]

Hi there and thanks for watching my video! Please feel free to share your opinions whether you agree with me or disagree with my take. I would only ask you to be civil in your presentation of arguments as comments that are civil will be read and possibly answered, but comments that just insult me or attack me will be ignored no matter the validity of the points they make, which would result in a massive waste of time on your end. I'm open to discussion but I resent anger and hatred. We all have the right to our opinions and I share them based on my freedom of speech on my platform. Once again thank you for sharing your thoughts and taking time to watch my content. Join this channel to get access to more old school Metatron videos the algorithm wouldn't prioritize! Support freedom and get your preferred content!: kzbin.info/door/IjGKyrdT4Gja0VLO40RlOwjoin Also if you like what I do and wish to support my work to help me make sure that I can continue to tell it how it is please consider checking out my Patreon! Unboxings are Patreon exclusives! www.patreon.com/themetatron

[@fun-with-purpose1436]

Love your videos. I just wish people would call it national socialism and not Nazism. Nazi is a derogatory term created by a Russian communist that meant “country folk”, from ignaz. It’s similar to calling people other derogatory racial slurs. Just fyi. No disrespect.

[@kjt7971]

5:19 This is a terrible metric. 1-dimensional. The political landscape isnt even an X-Y axis in most political compasses. It is a 3-dimensional cube, with an X-Y-Z axis. X = Left-Right (Revolution vs Traditional) Y= Authority-Populism (Statism vs Populism) and Z = Economic structure (Top-Down vs Bottom-Up).

[@kjt7971]

9:15 This is a myth. I can use the 2-Dimensional X-Y axis to show how this is wrong. Authority-Populism axis vs Left-Right axis. Authoritarianism has the same goal, Left and Right axis is mere justification and means to the end of authoritariansim. Example, Video games. Censorship. In the 90's the right wanted to censor videogames because violence toward women. 30 years later, the left wanted to censor video games for violence toward women. Right wing justification- "Religion". Left wing justification- "Sexism l, Misogyny". No horseshoe fallacy. Just authoritarians will come up with the same conclusions, but will always have their own justifications that are competing. And a left authoritarian will always think the right authoritarian's methods are silly, and reject their means for censorship, et vice versa.

[@LawfulBased]

I view the right as the base & norm of all things. Progressive new ideas are always coming from the left. Which means... as with all things... of course the N°zis came from the left until they had conquered the Zeitgeist and became "the right".

[@Chuklz70]

The modern 21ST version of The LOSS of Freedom of Speech is being repeatedly demonstrated by Mass Reporting by Bot Farms and Reactive Moderators who target outspoken accounts which are then banned on their social media platforms. EDITED, I got passionate and saw too many typos

[@jhill7009]

Yakov Smirnoff said it best. In America, you can go to the White House and say "I don't like Reagan." Soviet Russia has free speech too. You can go to the Kremlin and say "I don't like Reagan."

[@Leoluvesadmira]

I first heard Ronald Reagan tell this joke as well

[@davidstrelec2000]

But does saying I dont like Reagan change the way the system functions? Obviously no.

[@rosswalenciak3739]

@@davidstrelec2000 *just* saying, doesn't make any difference in either system, so what's your point?

[@Kensuke0987]

@@davidstrelec2000 I think you're spoiled. In a country without freedom, before you could even think of the possibility of your actions changing the system, you'd be living in fear of the possibility of your actions changing your life expectancy.

[@Conserpov]

Try criticizing people who actually run USA instead of Reagan.

[@tenzinite]

As far as American politics is concerned the right wants to uphold freedom of speech, gun ownership, a free market, and small government. This doesn't mesh with fascism or nazism.

[@elijahamezcua7592]

Something I wish the right would acknowledge more often is that our Republican representatives aren’t always “conservative” in the same ways we are. By that in MOSTLY talking on that “small government” portion you mentioned. And what’s crazy is that liberalism and “punkism” used to be on that same side. What do you think changed?

[@rnnfds7042]

​@@elijahamezcua7592I like this point. A perfect example I think of this is someone like Dick Chaney holds almost none of the values of the small government conservatives that voted for him.

[@jamesmiller7457]

​@@rnnfds7042He is a Democrat now. That is why he is backing Kamala

[@jamesmiller7457]

​@elijahamezcua7592 Because "punk" music represented the ostracized... the outcasts. Well, back in the late 70s, that was blacks, gays, women, etc... liberals. Now, those are the cool kids, and the ostracized are the Christians... especially the white Christians.

[@cryptomiller5747]

This is ignorant towards what the left right paradigm is as a whole and goes to show how close minded the American two party system makes Americans. There are a plethora of right wing political philosophies that are anti freedom and gun ownership such as monarchism and neo-conservatism. As well there are a plethora of left wing political philosophies that fit your description such as Mutualism and some forms of eco anarchism. Left wing philosophies revolve around egalitarian views while right wing maintain ideas of natural law. Fascism is 100% a political philosophy that revolves around the idea that certain individuals are inherently better or more equipped for certain positions. It has nothing to do with individual policies or economics, it all has to do with philosophical stance.

[@grandmufftwerkin9037]

The oversimplification by pop culture politics of so many issues has been to our international detriment.

[@MagcargoMan]

Lol, says you, one of the usual suspects in right-wing culture wars channels often spamming low-brow comments to chase likes.

[@grandmufftwerkin9037]

@@MagcargoMan Hi, Let me introduce myself. I have three degrees, including an MA, in the fields of classical studies, history, and military strategic studies. What might you bring to the table?

[@grandmufftwerkin9037]

@@MagcargoMan One can maintain a sense of humour, and also discuss complex issues; they are not mutually exclusive.

[@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231]

"I like good things, and if you disagree with me, you like bad things!" That's how the entire left side of politics views the world. It's the same way cults control their flock, they condition you to just automatically demonize anyone who disagrees with you, that way you never actually listen to other ideas.

[@MagcargoMan]

@@grandmufftwerkin9037 Source: Nowhere to be found.

[@Jade.Phoenix]

As a conservative Republican, there is nothing of Hitler's policies that I would agree with except on the nationalist versus globalist question, I would be a nationalist by default. All of his policies would be to the left of mine.

[@victorvolobuev507]

Apparently there are two derived meanings of nationalism, the one you’re describing where consolidation of one world power is not a favorable direction. Hence nationalism. Apparently the other derived meaning of nationalism, is when property ownership and means of production are controlled by the government rather than private citizen. To which, most conservatives would disagree

[@Jade.Phoenix]

@@victorvolobuev507 interesting. Until this video, I had never heard that definition of nationalism be used be used before. I always used socialism for that definition.

[@men-om6ue]

​@@victorvolobuev507nobody in the west uses that definition.

[@JamieZero7]

​@@men-om6ue Maybe not in modern thought. But back in 20th century it was how nationalism was seen even the nazis called their nationalism saw their nationalism as socialism. Sacrifice for the state. The nazis are collectivists with altruism. So you need to put yourself in that mindset. The Prussian state was built extremely statist.

[@matton36]

Both left and right can be nationalist so thats a mute point anyway. Besides, Hitler called is party nationalist but he also called it SOCIALIST AKA the National Socialist German workers party. last time i checked socialism was left wing.

[@TakeShotAction]

My politics is slightly left of center. Tried telling someone very far left once that I always found nazi ideology more similar to leftist ideology. They raised their voice and got extremely angry rather than hearing out what I had to say.

[@bigm980]

The left only responds with emotion.

[@davidtopliceanu1]

Not surprised 😂

[@johng3752]

sounds about right.

[@herrgodfrey9563]

This is because Marxism, Fascism and Nazism have similar, if not identical, roots. Fascism and Marxism are both directly based on Hegelian philosophy, and Nazism is more Rosecrucianism but all come from subjectivist Greek philosophy and Gnosticism. If you only took economics into account, the Nazis look *VERY* Soviet. Both would not have put up with modern progressivism, though. People see Nazism as this very one dimensional ideology- racist authoritarians, when it's so much more complicated than that. Socialists around the world initially praised Hitler and now they've been spending the last 80 or so years trying to distance themselves from him to the point of blaming the right wing for his actions.

[@joedirt8178]

The truth hurts

[@disgruntledtaco3640]

The concept of “left vs right” was popularized by the French, not Americans

[@mr.mensch1557]

The French!!! I shoulda known it was the French all along!

[@Hrossey]

Christ appears and hands you a book. You may have heard of it. That’s where the left and right paths are explained.

[@judsongaiden9878]

@@Hrossey In biblical terms, the left hand represents judgment while the right hand represents mercy. The regime that's regarded as most antithetical to heaven is the Beast's regime which is Rome or any successor to Rome (which includes the Third Reich). "666" represents the Roman empire or Roman imperialist ideology. The regime of the antichrist will be the Fourth Reich and will rise from Europe (the feet of clay interspersed with iron, the iron representing the lingering phantasm of Roman ideology).

[@JayMuzquiz]

@@mr.mensch1557It was coined during the French Revolution Reign of Terror part of it. The Committee of Public Safety the Revolutionaries sat on the left and the clergy and nobles sat on the right. That’s where the term comes from. Because those who sat on the right were conservatives they conflate Constitutional Conservative ( two completely different things )

[@disgruntledtaco3640]

@@JayMuzquiz it started as a pretty literal “right vs left”, and it mutated over time

[@PiousMoltar]

"Freedom of speech is the first thing to go" And that's why I'm so terrified and appalled by the current situation here in the UK.

[@slipperywinston4076]

The UK has never really had absolute freedom of speech in the contemporary sense of the word. There's always been limitations for example our libel laws or anything that could compromise national security or public order. The two main things you're probably referring to, people arrested for tweeting and people arrested for inciting violence have been long established laws in the UK some stemming back as far as 100 years and more, the 'arrested for tweeting laws' came in in 2010 under David Cameron's government. So yeah there's always been restrictions on our freedom of speech, people make the mistakes of thinking we're like America in that respect.

[@TheKidDoc81]

@@slipperywinston4076 Yes, but there is clearly a two-tier policing and judicial system at work. Fast tracking people to prison for two years because of tweets and shouting at police. Nine years for setting a bin on fire in one case, while others that have assaulted police officers and committed child r@pe, walk free. Even in my neck of the woods, certain communities were allowed to walk around with weapons and assault pub goers freely because the Chief Constable asked these "community leaders" if they were needed.

[@rojalD]

​@@slipperywinston4076arrested for tweeting? Wtf did I miss? Also, a small tidbit. Complete free speech doesn't work. You need laws that protect free speech, otherwise you'd be allowing speech that limits, threatens, damages or even destroys the freedom or bodily integrity of others. It's the same concept as pacifism. Pacifism is great, as long as everyone else is a pacifist. You need only one 'bully' to destroy it.

[@Dakotako]

@@slipperywinston4076 I wish y’all were more like us in that way and less in others

[@jmgonzales7701]

@@slipperywinston4076 sadly the Brits can't speak up about their true feelings of immigration

[@osphranterrufus]

Mussolini was a hard left communist the minute before he invented fascism; he didn't change, he just added nationalism, which all actual communist regimes like North Korea, USSR, and the CCP also have in spades but without the name change.

[@mr.archivity]

No, he was a socialist. He was against communism.

[@osphranterrufus]

@@mr.archivity From Wikipedia on Mussolini, which has references: During this period Mussolini considered himself an "authoritarian communist" and a Marxist and he described Karl Marx as "the greatest of all theorists of socialism."

[@a_lost_one]

It was clearly Reich-wing. ...Ok, I'm sorry, I'll leave quietly now. 🚪

[@Marinealver]

Actually that was probably the most sensible answer to the question.

[@sendieloo]

🥁

[@mdjey2]

Imperial wing. Yup, everyone was under that wing.

[@likemostthings]

Nazis were Socialists. Socialists believe in collectivism, collectivism is left wing

[@Fatherofheroesandheroines]

We should ask Kyle..have you seen him?

[@exileenthroned]

Were nazis right or left wing? Ernst Rohm: Yes Edit: And to those commenting that this is why he got killed, this isn't really true. Rohm led the SA, better known as the Brownshirts, a paramilitary group connected to the NSDAP before it's rise to power. However, it was a separate organization that militantly supported National Socialist ideology. However, after Adolf Hitler was elected and rose to power, Rohm proceeded to claim that the revolution was not yet over, and continued to promote and participate in various levels of street violence. Essentially, as the SA had gone rogue in a since, the members were rounded up (I believe during the night of the long knives) and it's leadership, including Rohm, was executed. First he was locked in a room with a pistol, and when he refused to ride the sewer-slide, two officers mag-dumped him. The SA was soon replaced by the SS as the NSDAP s militant arm.

[@CriticalEyeMMA]

If people really want to understand that period of history they need to read the collected works of David Irving.

[@NugicusStreetPhotography]

@@CriticalEyeMMA No.

[@CriticalEyeMMA]

@@NugicusStreetPhotography Reason as to why.

[@faketheo3432]

@@CriticalEyeMMA lmaaaaaaaaooooooo David Irving 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@CriticalEyeMMA]

@@faketheo3432 Compelling argument. I bet you never read anything he wrote.

[@rekt6408]

"A two party system will tear our Nation apart." - George Washington

[@ampersand6375]

You know how things end-the way they begin.

[@drewtruscott3683]

a prominent figure mentioned in this video also said that

[@mihneabudan6117]

"For the American republic to survive, the American people and their elected leaders had to commit to lives of civic republican virtue-valuing reason over passion and the public good over private self-interest." -George Washington "Farewel address" 1796 G.W. it s probably rolling în his grave, they never listen...

[@daedalus6433]

@@mihneabudan6117"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson

[@mihneabudan6117]

@@daedalus6433 This is really really good. I ve noted it.

[@jeffs6081]

I saw a video that explained national socialism: “nationalism without capitalism, and socialism without internationalism.”

[@Heavyisthecrown]

Full Socialism is bad either way . But if people want it, you need to be a nation of all the same race, religion and all be a peaceful people. It absolutely could never work with America taking in all of the world’s 3rd world immigrants being only 4% of the population of the entire world. We would have to also be isolationists to be socialist and have enough to make it work. Also people would have to be forced by law to do jobs they don’t want to do. You would get assigned a job essentially. And if you didn’t perform the same as your peers, since you’d still get the same you’d have to be punished in some way . Like if someone at your factory only did 150 bread bags while you did 2,000, they were just goofing around the whole time. They’d get the same as you. It just would never work. As much as people hate capitalism it does work for the most part. Even people that struggle still are okay, they need to go look around Somalia or Nepal and see true struggle and living without

[@Jaster832]

Left wing.

[@Krachbumm-Ente]

A simplistic yet fitting summary of what National Socialism actually was. The best of both sides

[@Barada73]

My initial takeaway from this video is that, throughout recent history, the people fighting against freedom of speech and private property rights are NEVER the good guys.

[@slevinchannel7589]

Kid, c'mon. Try better. Dont lie so bad i can literally point to your fellow commenters, going wild with C-Theorys, Nutjobstatements about COmmunism being evil, Socialism has never worked - oh my god, imagine being so misinformed. Man, i wonder if misinformation is bad? I dunnnoooo. I wonder if Virtues are positive actually, and Spineless Integrity-Lack and all that is baaaddd. I wonder if the F-scism-Videos by Some-More-News disagreee with your worldview so your scared of facing them. Wow, being unable to LOOK at counterevidence to your claims: Howww herroiccc. It's not like universal Consensus among all f-ing Cultures ever is 'Honesty =Gooodddd'. Geez, maaannnn. F-scism-Videos by Some-More-News - can you even finish 1, let alone 2, LET ALONE All

[@darthradious7011]

The Nazis endorsed capitalism and its key aspect of private property. Private property itself should be abolished in the long run.

[@chrischros8790]

The problem with Freedom of speech is that people overuse it and don't quite understand the concept. Insulting others, using overly derogatory names, phrases and stuff is where most people draw a line in the sand. I think especially parts of American society confuse Freedom of Speech with the latter. Yes you have the right to speak your mind, be it praise, be it complaint, be it expressing you satisfaction or your frustration and so forth. But: Freedom of speech shouldn't be understood as an allowance to talk down others, preach or teach hate, ridicule for example minorities or other cultures. One could argue that satire crosses the line fairly often but it mostly aims against the people with more power, the ones in charge, at least good satire does that.

[@johnjohntv1195]

@@chrischros8790all of that is just your opinion

[@Barada73]

@@chrischros8790 Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences of your speech from society. It simply means that the government has no right to dictate what speech is allowed. It's a restriction on the government alone. If you, as a free citizen, say something stupid, offensive, or incendiary, then there are consequences for that from other free citizens. Sure, it's not a perfect system, but it's way better than allowing the government to police speech.

[@fesimco4339]

How can you say the Nazis would be opposed to identity politics when Identity was central to Nazi politics. Think: Who is Aryan, The degree to which one had any Jewish ancestors, Persecution of Jews Slavs Roma and so on.

[@tearsintherain6311]

He means blue hair And it happened, when they burned books they burned a lot of the latest advancements in gender studies and transgender studies They said it was degenerate and created by a certain ethnic group to pervert the German people

[@tikimillie]

true, and anyone who didnt the ideal identity was "humanely euthanized" like the handicapped and mentally ill was as the first. and also if you were gay you weren't cool either and was put in nazi gay baby jail.

[@daveharrison61]

This was the biggest weakness with the argument presented in this video, but I'll give him a pass as modern identity politics is all about giving minorities power over the majority.

[@keyes858]

@@daveharrison61 That's just half of identity politics. The other half is about opposing anything labeled 'woke'.

[@slevinchannel7589]

Well, Right-Wingers have literally been caught lying to make them look Left-Wing. SO i think we have our answer right-there right ou of the Bat. They were famously right-wing and right-wingers, who feel attacked by this fact, try to swindle. Like the non'Side of true Turth' always tends to do. But hey, if my point-out here aint enough, go convince yourself: dont be in a Metatron-Echochamber and actually get a criticially-acclaiemd SECOND-opinion: 'Some More News' has multiple youtube-videos praised by Historians about F-scism

[@UncleMikeDrop]

Hell, the American model of left v right rarely works in AMERICA. People are not so simple.

[@AnotherDuck]

From a European perspective, it's all right.

[@bigguy7353]

He's objectively and demonstrably far left.

[@deuswulf6193]

@@AnotherDuck Funny thing is, the European perspective has communism on the left and natSoc on the right. That would mean to them being a centric would be half way between communism and natsoc. It kind of shows how silly such a spectrum is at first glance, but its also somewhat accurate as well given that the original left vs right is essentially Plato vs Aristotle.

[@yamatokurusaki5790]

​@@deuswulf6193 the centric means you take something from that and something from the other

[@MR-MR-ud5oo]

We didn't pick the title, THEY DID!!! They literally have been calling us that since 2016! So we say: FINE, we'll be whatever side is opposite of you!

[@jams7259]

Well. After giving it thought as a republican. And being called a fascist nazi by woke college liberals. Being a unhappy madman not getting into artschool wanting to ban guns, speech, and blaming demographics for taking money away from the working class is more of a relatable life experience for them more than it is for me.

[@jasonmiller1841]

Ironically, it's the words of a comedian that most correctly define the intent of our country's founders. "In America, we have the first amendment. We have the second amendment just in case the first one doesn't work out." Dave Chapelle

[@LeonardTavast]

It's utterly delusional to think that the US military can be defeated by a bunch of angry gun-owners. Like what are they even going to do with their AR-15s against Bradley and Abrams... Not to mention the vast gap in command & control, combined arms warfare etc.

[@RachDarastrix2]

That's called an "its funny because its true."

[@TGPDrunknHick]

also important is you have ammendments. apparently even the founders realised they didn't get things right at first and that things might change.

[@nicholas-t6x]

lmfao stop the LARP no one is going to do anything.

[@TechAndBeyond381]

@@nicholas-t6xyoud be surprised, “oh but the army” yeah US citizens are in the military and they wouldnt be very fine with shooting down their fellow Americans. If you get down to it we have power over the government but the true power is being taken by massive corporations.

[@imcubanb2870]

Funny joke I once heard. -An American and a Soviet Russian are having an argument about which country is better. The American says, "America is better because we have freedom of speech. I can walk up to Ronald Reagan and tell him, Mr. President, I don't like how you are running America." The soviet says, "I can do the same." "Really" "Yes, I can walk up to the Gorbachev and tell him to his face, General Secretary, I don't like the way Ronald Reagan is running America."

[@mcmarkmarkson7115]

But can you say what a woman is? :D

[@gareth2736]

@@imcubanb2870 Although Gorbachev turned the USSR into a nation where you could criticise the leader, Putin has reversed that change unfortunately.

[@Snibble]

Reagan Jokes: American & Russian Arguing About Freedom In Their Countries (search that if you want to see Reagan himself telling that joke)

[@markmcflounder15]

​@@mcmarkmarkson7115hahaha literally LoLed! Brilliant

[@markmcflounder15]

​@@gareth2736Konstantin Kisin said that R.ssia arrested about 400 ppl in a yr for soc.media posts. How many did the UK arrest in the same yr?

[@grandmufftwerkin9037]

Pervasive American historio-cultural dynamics are deeply skewing the understanding of a lot of history, culture, and politics.

[@pepita2437]

Yeah. I thought the same clicking on this video. Then I remembered Metatron is not American. XD

[@grandmufftwerkin9037]

​@@pepita2437 As a Canadian, I see the worst of this impacting us because of proximity.

[@TREMOR1000]

It's the Soviet fault. They didn't want to be similar to nazis, so they said they are right

[@douglasclerk2764]

It seeps into pretty well everything.

[@refugeehugsforfree4151]

By your logic why is nonwestern countries not included in your overton window? Oh, because you want to pretend Nazism is Rightwing.

[@NerdettesNewsStand]

This has quickly become one of my favorite channels, always well done and educational

[@KornPop96]

I've never understood why it matters. Just so it can be blamed on the other side?

[@scarofmanleavethembehind]

Bingo!

[@michaelbishop1]

Tribal morality uber alles. Heads I win, tails you lose.

[@Whatever-g1r]

It matters (to whoever) because National Socialism is viewed in the world as the epitome of evil. For the right or left to be associated with National Socialism it would become incredibly much harder to implement any policy that's not centrist since anything further right or left from center will be compared to National Socialist policies and therefore be evil. Thus, no change will come and the status quo is preserved.

[@MagcargoMan]

It's because ever since the rise of the SJWs, right-wingers have tried to scrub their entire history to pretend people hated them for no reason. Strange coincidence how Neo-Nazis are right-wingers though.

[@TheShogunRichie]

Yes. One side wants to assert they moral superiority and the easiest way to do that is to make your political opposition seem like evil incarnate

[@82dorrin]

Property rights in National Socialism were contingent on the use of that property. If a factory owner produced what the state wanted, they could stay in control. If they refused, the state would take over. Effectively, the individual had no actual property rights.

[@whosweptmymines3956]

Something that TIK pointed out in one of his videos about this question is that the Nazis were halted in their socialist economic and property rights transformation by the war. It's very plausible that they would have made further sweeping changes after the war if they had still been in power.

[@vedinthorn]

Much like modern China

[@AJX-2]

There were still many times where factory owners refused Nazi contracts without facing any backlash

[@u2beuser714]

You have to rememeber this was in times of war so making generalizations and extrapolating from policies of wartime government is problematic

[@u2beuser714]

But you literally said in your own comment that property right could exist if its consistent with the state therefore the individual had property right in certain circumstances

[@anon6000]

If we define "your private property exists at the mercy of the state" as left-wing, it is literally impossible for any totalitarian regime to be right-wing, since in a totalitarian regime, everything you do is at the mercy of the state.

[@SconnerStudios]

You are infringing upon my economic liberty to run a child labor-run heroin factory, which used to be run by slaves, but you and your authoritarian left wing government said I couldn't have those either! I've seen people online unironically argue for both child and slave labor because muh economic liberty.

[@sonnikdoh2510]

If you look at the Political Spectrum as 2 opposing views of Government. I see it as Right is less Gov't with the extreme as Anarchy or no Government. Left is more Government with the extreme as full Totalitarianism and Dictatorship. So yes, it is impossible under that concept. Modern Political spectrums are being scrambled and confused. Some show it as both extremes going to Anarchy which makes no sense for polar opposing Political ideologies. Others show it as a mix of the 2. I think this is just to keep everything foggy so we fight each other more.

[@bobross1829]

well, yep.

[@joelhenry5489]

The idea that the rightwing is about "private property" is rightwing marketing.

[@bobross1829]

@@joelhenry5489 It literally is about free markets. Adam Smith LOL

[@michaelmcgowen8780]

I'm an American, and wish to thank Metatron for this video. It's exasperating to me as a student of political science in my youth to hear other American attempt to bend history to fit their particular political narrative, whether it's World history or American history. Sadly, the American news media is just as culpable as those spinning the narrative. Whenever I attempt pointing out what you have in this video, I get shouted down and subjected to flame attacks. Doesn't matter which "faction" is the audience.

[@will_hargreaves]

Perhaps the most accurate way to describe Hitler, Mussolini, etc... would be "Alt-Left". Both Hitler and Mussolini came out of their respective countries Trade Union Movements (known in Germany as Syndicalism). Like Marx & Stalin they were both both big-government Collectivists. However, Hitler considered his brand of socialism superior to that of Marxist-Leninist Socialism in that National Socialism built it's collectivism around Race first and Class second, whereas Marx & Co.'s collectivism prioritised class over all else. In short, National Socialism was an ALTERNATIVE to International Socialism. Hence Alt-Left.

[@Enyavar1]

Nah. Fascists of all times have leaned on capitalism. They only "collectivize" (take for themselves) the capital of whom they declare their enemies - and with power creep comes a longer and longer list of enemies whom you can then disown. Loyalist factory owners were always protected and rose in power. Not so with left-extremists, you recognize them by saying that all capitalists are to be torn down. But this video was all about symptoms and end results... when the real difference is the underlying ideology and propaganda they claim. Regarding fascism, the definitions on fascism by Paxton and Eco are pretty great. Check them out, Wikipedia is your friend here.

[@drjonesey5]

No such thing as alt-left really. The left always leads to people like those people if you allow the ideology to flourish. Leftist literally embrace socialism, Marxism and Communism and that's been true forever. Liberalism always ends up at it's conclusion becoming progressive leftism where you become more and more extreme. The "alt-right" have no power, nobody likes them, they're small in number and are a fringe group responding to leftist extremism essentially. Even in the past, the funny hooded folks who hated us blacks were Democrat left leaning. Everybody knows this which is why the lie of the "party switch" was created to claim they became Republican's later to remove the stain on Dem's. Additionally, Leftist Dem's were the majority folks who opposed all things involving us blacks progressing socially during civil rights. There use to be more normal left leaning folks but now they're being pushed to the center to be moderates or to the right because the left has become a party of extreme views by design who tolerate nobody else but leftist extremism. Democrat's decided awhile back to use progressives as a weapon against losing to the right and allowed them to take over the party, and now we're here. If a Leftist progressive took Presidency and wanted to be a Dictator and said they were not leaving office after their term to be said Dictator, the left would support it mostly. The right would never support that regardless if the person is viewed as good by the right. All the left does is project project project, hence why they make a big deal over Jan 6 where people were told to be peaceful and let into the Capital by Guards that had a few air heads mixed in with normal protestors but leftist say nothing about all the riots they encouraged via radical groups they fund themselves to actually destroy things and stir up unrest.

[@raifthemad]

"prioritised class over all else." - maybe in theory, but in practice, russians were first class citizens compared to us natives in the soviet times. You can't take tribalism out of apes.

Also thought that Marxism was a scam invented by the rich Jews, hence not true socialism

[@AVlad-eg3ds]

No, this is completely incorrect description. Trade Unions are just an instrument for everyone. Even capitalists can successfully use them for their own benefit. So you cannot label anyone being something just because of instruments they used or, even, the name they gave to their own instruments. Nazism is an alternative of socisalism in exactly the same way as capitalism in general is. They are not compatible, thus alternatives. Socialism in it's Marxists form as an utopian idea of everyone's equality and absense of injustice achieved through common ownership of the capital thus removing the conflict of classes exploiting each other that was seen as the root of all injustice. In the extreme of communists dreams, the whole planet will be liket that and there will be no need in government at all. No private ownership, thus no injustice, thus no need in government - that is the goal. This the the radical left utopian unrealistic idea based on the ungrounded void assumption that people as species want to be equal and want no conflicts, or rather that they can be changed in a way that everyone will want to be like that and that will drive the humanity forward. Nazism is an idea of achieving the 'natural' dominance of own nation ('race') by conquering, exploiting and destroying inferior 'races'. 'Socialism' in their name exists purely for the idea of confusing uneducated German workers of that time and breaking them apart from real socialist movement. Hitler himself was originally against adding this word to their party name because he hated socialists, BTW. He and his followers denied the idea of class conflicts as a concept at all but were all for very strong government and 'natural' race superiority. In fact they were also capitalists, they just denied the open market (frankly speaking every country denies open market for own country, they are for open markets of other countries only, right US and EU) but not the private property as such. In fact they proclaimed private property and entrepreneurship as the backbone of their own existence. It fitted super well into their social darwinism ideas. Strong government, private property, entrepreneurship, strong social hierarchy. This is the right wing at it's purest. And this is why nazism is radical right and has nothing to do with left wing. Don't let word 'socialist' added with a sole intention of confusing uneducated workers to confuse yourself.

[@JonK...]

Red is a left wing colour and blue is a right wing colour. The US colours are the opposite these days.

[@metatronyt]

Yes when I first moved here and started learning about the politics that surprised me since as a European, I've always connected red with communism indeed.

[@dutchdykefinger]

absolutely calling someone a "red" has meant they're socialist/commie for a long time a "pinko" is someone holding luxury beliefs in endorsing that shit from the outside (sympathizers), basically communism light they're called pinkos because pink is a lighter kind of red

[@CTimmerman]

US democrats were of course racist when the majority of voters were.

[@z2ei]

@@metatronyt For what it's worth, it's a *very* recent thing - as in 2000 onward. The article "When Republicans Were Blue and Democrats Were Red" goes into it in detail.

[@b.benjamineriksson6030]

And pink used to be a very male coded colour in the early 20th century, the it switched. The colour of things doesn't matter.

[@Face2theScr33n]

As Norm MacDonald said, I love history books about wars. The good guys always win

[@noneofyourbusiness3288]

Those are some concerning implications there, considering the context...

[@patrickdalton2424]

Ain't that the truth

[@camilogallardo5262]

@@noneofyourbusiness3288 thats the point of the quote though, like its pointing out how flawed things are. unless i missed something lol

[@redred2772]

Norm was a brilliant guy, my favorite story is when he went on tour with some comedians - he opens - does all the other comedians material! The man was fearless. RIP Norm. Say hi to Gilbert and Carlin for us.

[@seanaguilar2057]

@@noneofyourbusiness3288 Yet I assume you believe the news lies now. Politicians lie now. But when everything was government controlled, then it was all honest, right? There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Perhaps history is much like today, full of half truths and lies.

[@michaeljay556]

Why so glad I found your channel - love the fair and balanced views of these complex and often controversial topics. You have a new lifetime follower!

[@metatronyt]

Thank you and welcome 🙏🏻

[@pweddy1]

Lenin stated you can’t be a “democracy” until “everyone is equal” under socialism. The “left’s” use of the term democracy is common and has been since Marx.

[@harrychildress4575]

When someone says, in a Democratic or Democracy “everyone is equal, they mean everyone in the world. To a Democrat there are no borders. Citizenship is only for people of our Constitution, and our Republic.

[@Matthew-z6g]

Unfortunately, life has a nasty habit of happening unequally

[@pweddy1]

@@Matthew-z6g Not to mention, you can't expect equal outcomes from the guy that wears all his wealth in gold chains around his neck and the guy who invest his money to try and create a business. "everything happens for a reason!" Sometimes that reason is you're stupid stupid and you made bad choices.

[@tractordamage5272]

@@Matthew-z6g And Psychopaths use 'Socialism' to reach the top jobs. Humans can't do true Socialism by nature, but the 'Woke' Covert Narcissist mindset ain't known for Logic and Critical Thinking. Socialism - 'Pretending to be on the side of the people, for Power'. The alternative definition stands true even today. Leftist Covert Narcissists and Sociopaths crave Power, Attention and Ego massages. Virtue Signaling isn't enough 'Narcissist Supply' for many.

[@west7192]

This is also why you don't hear about communists and socialists supporting Republicans. However. You have both communists and socialists running as democratic candidates and voting for democratic candidates.

[@cmolodiets]

the american left right dichotomy is actually a liberal-conservative dichotomy. The concept of a left-right political spectrum is french and is mostly used in Europe.

[@-_YouMayFind_-]

The left in America is way more progressive.

[@the_cogito5170]

Americans definitely talk about left vs right incessantly.

[@realDarkPeterson]

@@the_cogito5170 They do, but it is largely detached from the meaning it had in its' original conception.

[@houndoftindalos9580]

A whole swathe of people in South and Central America would disagree

[@Projolo]

​@@the_cogito5170They are technically all left

[@DeepFlamingo]

Authoritarianism will inevitably be as idiosyncratic as the men who posses authority. When you're the man who wears the big hat why would you defer to what a poli-sci major says you're supposed to be ideologically consistent with?

[@AJX-2]

Before Hitler and Mussolini and Franco were ideologues, they were pragmatists. It doesn't matter if a specific policy is traditionally left or right. If it's useful for their goals, they'll use it.

[@RiptidexRiltreks]

@@AJX-2 which too many idiots in the comments are seeming to not realize is exactly what they did. and are trying to use this logic: "he had good intentions prior, therefore what he studied/learned/'supported' he actually did for himself, meaning he actually supports/believes these things, which makes him and all natezis ____ wing/ ____ leaning." as if lmao

[@FilipCordas]

No real problem is people just don't know what a Nazi is and invent a crazy everything I don't like ideology to make themselves feel better, so they never have to say I agree with Hitler on something. Nazi party was consistent and did everything they promised. And by modern they would be 'left'.

[@Kurainuz]

@@AJX-2 Franco has been always been considered a right winger in spain, even by right wing parties, our main right wing party was created by one of his ministers. He changed a lot of thing to suit his needs and to save his skin, wanting to become part of the axis and then moving towards usa so his dictatorship was safe the moment he saw the axis losing. But he was always against lgtb and the left and extremely pro catholithism and traditional family.

[@jliller]

@@AJX-2 "If it's useful for their goals, they'll use it." And what are those goals, other than to have power? Authoritarians are usually trying to achieve something beyond just "have absolute rule a country." Hitler and Mussolini were both trying to make their country great again and put their country first. They wanted a traditional society of strong men and subservient women. Hitler wanted to eliminate certain ethnic and religious groups who he thought were inferior.

[@darthpadre3263]

It was the national socialist party dude. There i saved you time. It was leftist.

[@merovekh]

Is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea a democratic country? Which groups were first put in Nazi concentration camps as political prisoners? It's almost as if people can name stuff whatever they want regardless of whether it conforms to its actual meaning.

[@WiggaMachiavelli]

@@merovekh Okay, but it's not for no reason. National socialism doesn't mean the bit on a Venn diagramme where nationalism and socialism overlap.

[@merovekh]

@@WiggaMachiavelli Hitler concentrated all authority to the state and was bankrolled by and supported the enterprises of wealthy companies (such as Krups, IG Farben, etc). Nothing about that is remotely socialist. The NSDAP started out with an internal socialist faction that was rooted out (violently, even). It remained in the name to confuse the discourse and steal votes from the actual socialist parties (that gained popularity after the stock market crash). Note: I am not socialist. I am a centric, slightly conservative person. I am also an archaeologist with an interest in history and, therefore, historical truth.

[@christianblomqvist3406]

They themselves said they used it to become more popular with the working class while mocking actual socialists.

[@Tony333Aye]

@@merovekhirrelevant counter point. The national socialist party was called national socialist because it nationalized all industry under the state. It was socialism- state socialism. If you want to be even more accurate you could call it “folk socialism”. Only thing differentiating regular state socialism and national socialism was the folkish ideology/germanic ethnic-internationalism. Or, put more simply, national socialism 😉. So it is accurate to call national socialism, a socialistic ideology.

[@nostrum6410]

It's almost as if this left/right wing dichotomy is so ambiguous that it's useless

[@PVilarnovo]

It is not.

[@black-redpill3]

The point of the lies is not to convince people of the lies, it is to get people so distrustful of what they hear they will reject even the truth.

[@mojus2890]

​@@PVilarnovo I bet you can't even give a workable definition for left and right wing.

[@andrewdriver3318]

​@@PVilarnovo It actually is. Unless you care to explain how is it that the "Right" includes both extreme anti government libertarians AND ultra government fascists and the "Left" includes extreme anti government anarchists AND ultra government planed market economy Communists? An more logical system would be a spectrum of government control but that is clearly NOT what this is.

[@LalaDepala_00]

​@@PVilarnovoIt is. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. In countries like the U.S. politics is almost solely about dunking on the opposition instead of coming up with solutions to problems.

[@vettir]

The left/right political spectrum comes from France, and was basically left=progressive, right=conservative.

[@rgama1173]

Once again the the French ruin everything

[@BlackJar72]

I usually think of it as right

[@nikolatomic5287]

@@BlackJar72 progressive/conservative is definition by the left. left claims by itself that is "progressive". no real proof that they progress to anything better. conservative sounds like old fashion. for me, right should define it as degenerate/normal.

[@kelly4187]

Which is why I refuse to use it. It itself is the product of the revolutionary ideology that wanted to present their views as an equal alternative to the naturally evolved set of values, behaviours and norms that was sure to lead to success in the long term. They aren't one (right) is "normal human society", and the other (left) are fringe dangerous revolutionary lunatics guided by faulty philosophy that should be actively suppressed wherever possible.

[@w415800]

Every ideology can be left or right, depending on whether they are in power or not.

[@shadeaquaticbreeder2914]

0:17 I see a section dedicated to definitions!! This is already leagues ahead of everything else not from the Anarchist perspective.

[@daviss4101]

This is my first time in your channel and this is your first video i watch. Instantly fall in love with this channel. I love history. Subscibed. 👍

[@lawr5764]

You HAVE freedom of speech... you just don't have freedom AFTER you speak.

[@rutessian]

You must be one of them oxy-moronic people.

[@StephOMacRules]

Or the ironical statement of freedom of speech but not freedom of consequences, considering how arbitrary one can draw the line to even nullify what the former is trying to protect.

[@davemccage7918]

I disagree with the Metatron on one key statement. Freedom of speech isn’t the first thing to be taken away in a totalitarian regime! Freedom to defend your right to speak is always the the first to go! The 2nd amendment is the MOST IMPORTANT of all of them, without force to back it up the rest of the constitution is just ink on paper. People have tried to use a piece of paper as a shield in the past, it doesn’t end well for them.

[@soulknife20]

​@davemccage7918 And the 2nd Amendment is not in any danger of being repealed due to how Amendements are done. I don't even know if the first ten Amendements can even be repealed.

[@pattonramming1988]

​@@soulknife20oh Congress will try

[@Scutum-ky2fx]

My worry is in modern eras, many nations or parties will call fascism to either political side, whilst wishing to become a totality in ideology in the region, enforcing their ways totally. It makes me think the people whom yell the word Nazi at people, usually as people with authoritarian motives, no matter if they are right or left, it is a tool to totalitarianism.

[@alantyndall85]

It's quite easy to shout Nazi at people who believe in or ally with white supremacy as it was a defining feature of Nazi Germany. That the racial based, nationalist state they would build would have different economic policies is fairly irrelevant, in the grand scheme of things.

[@RoseBaggins]

I mean, at this point ...

[@miniaturejayhawk8702]

As churchill said: "future fascists will call themselves anti-fascists" Ironically after the war he started calling his enemies fascists, which got him voted out.

[@alantyndall85]

@@miniaturejayhawk8702 Churchill was voted out because he opposed the welfare state and NHS. Soldiers had fought all over the world and were not about to come back to nothing, nor were they convinced by his anti socialist rhetoric, having just fought alongside Communists.

[@p.s.9658]

So they do in Spain.

[@sappyginger]

fun fact: saying that communism (specifically Stalinism) was akin nazism is now punishable by law in Russia (you might get up to 15 days in jail or a small fine).

[@danieldangelo2682]

Well it's straight up denying History, so saying Stalinism was akin to Nazism is technically anti-science

[@elbolainas4174]

By russian law, spreading lies about WW2 (or the great patriotic war, as they like to call it) is punishable by jail. The caveat is that Russia is a dictatorship and the truth is whatever is more convenient for the Kremlin. That's why they'll deny or justify the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty.

[@wolveszrule4004]

Source???

[@yodbl4376]

​@@wolveszrule4004as a Russian citizen I can confirm that. Unfortunately it hardly ever works. For the past 30 years our Soviet period of history had been mocked by the government, by the mass media, by the movies (especially those about WWII).

[@bugfisch7012]

Well, to be fair - even though it should not be punished, it's basicly stupid to say anyway, as it's historical and political-philosophic bullshit. You can say that both were bad, wich does not make em the same or just comparable.

[@Handuniel]

Just recently the doubt about the "socialism" in national socialism had arisen to me and then I found your video. Thanks to it my doubt has been cleared and my knowledge expanded. Thank you very much for your work and information 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@mochithepooh5368]

I don't think this question is "recently asked a lot", I think it's "disingenuously asked a lot". We all recognized that the Nazi are _really_ bad, and most people don't want associate with someone who is recognized as really bad. Sooo it's _really really really inconvenient_ if your 'side' is closer to the really bad people.

[@VeteranVandal]

And it's specially inconvenient if you share policy ideas with them.

[@ericanderson7346]

At least most liberals can admit that going too far left has led to horrific historical consequences. Conservatives (at least in America) feel that all the terrible stuff is on one side of the spectrum, so they’re justified in going as far to the right as they deem necessary. Even to the point of gleefully hoping for an opportunity to commit the same types of atrocities the regimes they call “Leftist” committed.

[@ThomasReeves-s7u]

@@ericanderson7346 I think I've met Americans on the Left who basically say any horrific consequences was from people who weren't "truly Left." I remember Roger Ebert reviling Che Guevara but also, weirdly, calling him a Right-winger. And at the American Conservative an article defending Right-wing Portuguese dictator Salazar received many American conservative critics. (Me included.)

[@drehherd7394]

For germans (and in the Political sphere and philosophie of the Weimarer Republik) this whole question is very easy if we only focus on the ideology of NS it is Rechts and bot Links (I use the german words). Most arguing and misconceptions focus on war economy etc.

[@otaviotisikawa2594]

@@ericanderson7346 never seen one liberal admit that

[@member57]

He nationalized companies by sending in auditors and finding something wrong. Threatening fines or imprisonment if the owner didn't agree with an assigned overseer. This basically meant the business owner did what the government wanted.

[@jliller]

Fascists were only interested in nationalizing businesses when businesses weren't serving the state. Nationalism trumps free enterprise, but wherever free enterprise wasn't a problem it was left alone. Communists nationalize all businesses, farms, and residences as a matter of policy. The oppose free enterprise as a matter of policy. Communal ownership IS the goal.

[@harrydavey9884]

Sounds an awful lot like Mao's commune's taking over all private business.

[@Trihahalos]

Except... no... This was not nationalization. It was plain old "Put my guys in high positions". Something that effectively happens even in democracies. I mean hell, even the mob did and still does that. Are they communists too?

[@Joe-po9xn]

In truth, I don’t think the victims cared that much if they’re going to a concentration camp or a Siberian gulag.

[@MarcoMasseria]

Are you talking about those camps in California that Americans set up for their Japanese citizens? I understood the gulag part.

[@joshuawillingham6363]

​@@MarcoMasseriaConcentration camp is usually referring to the German extermination camps, at least by Americans. The Japanese internment camps in the U.S. were not by any stretch of the imagination right, and those people should not have had to go through that just due to ethnicity, but any equivocation between those and the concentration camps of Germany or the Soviet gulags is disingenuous to say the least.

[@reclhoss]

The critical ingredient is authoritarianism.

[@harindavithana1224]

As someone said "It doesn't matter if its left foot or right foot, when the boot is on your throat".

[@MJHdesproj]

It might however matter to those trying to prevent it from happening again

[@RezaQin]

The problem is that "right wing" in Europe is the left in America. We are not the same, Eurojanks.

[@hastetothepyre]

Well, you might have to explain yourself here xD because our left is just as left as the American left. They try to force the same politics on us and our right wing parties are for their country, for their people, their economy before anything else. We need a stable country to be able to provide for outside our borders. They hide the right wing parties in an antisemitic, bigotic and racist cloak, because there isn't much else that could prevent people from NOT being for their own country.

[@libera7161]

As an European I do not agree. I think European Politics is just quite different. I am from Austria and we have a whole different system. We have not just 2 but multiple parties you cam vote for. 4 bis ones and a few small ones. 2 conservative leaning and 2 liberal leaning. The 2 conservative ones are not the same the 2 liberal ones are not the same. The conservative ones for example may have more in common but not entirely on all aspects. Just for example the ÖVP was for all Covid Restrictions and went even beyond on telling everyone to stay home while the FPÖ where against it and said the Restrictions are destroying our Economy. When it comes to war they have different opinions too. But none of our conservative parties are for banning abortions but the liberal ones want to make them free.

[@darkfighter3173]

As a german this comment is absolutely bullshit

[@pauloemmi6216]

Totally incorrect!

[@MarioRmz1996]

Sure, because who invented the term "Europe" and who later implemented it America/USA, has the right to choose what is left and right if conveyed to local parties.

[@laurahubbard6906]

When I took Civics in my young days in the mid 1960s-a subject which no longer seems to be taught-we were told our US Government was technically a Federal Democratic Republic.

[@arakuss1]

Yes we are more of a Federalist Democratic Republic. In college I took a class called Jeffersonian-Hamiltonian in America. These to concepts formed would under Washington's Admin form the original two party system. Both ideals are aimed at secure the core inalienable rights of American citizens as well as states. Jeffersonian is more leaning that in order to protect those rights it is best done by the rights of the individual be secured and take precedent. This tended also to be that the inalienable rights States were better at protecting said rights. Hamiltonian is that a strong central government is needed to secure those rights because the individual rights of the citizen could be suppressed by the States. This in turn is why the US is more of a Federalist system of layered powers. The idea of securing and protecting the rights of the individual was also one of the reasons why the US doesn't have a direct democracy for a majority then can suppress the rights of an individual. This classic US conflict of Jeffersonian vs Hamiltonian was seen going back and forth in the US two party system until roughly around 1960s. My professor at the time said this is when regionalism and urban vs rural becomes more the driving force of politics in the US.

[@huberthumphry280]

@@arakuss1 That is a strange conclusion given that the Jeffersonian-Hamiltonian dichotomy was literally rural (Jeffersonian yeoman farmer republic) vs. urban (Hamiltonian centralized banking to foster industry and trade) and that itself tended towards regionalism, not only with Federalists having most power in New England, but with the "industrialized north vs. the rural south" during the Civil War.

[@buckodonnghaile4309]

​@huberthumphry280 how do you like them apples? Sorry, I don't know American history all that well, but I did watch Good Will Hunting. Cheers

[@ronson53]

@@huberthumphry280 Key Elements of the 1960s Cultural Shift: 1. Civil Rights Movement: One of the most prominent cultural shifts of the 1960s was the Civil Rights Movement, which fundamentally altered the political and social fabric of the U.S. The movement sought to end racial segregation, ensure voting rights, and secure equal treatment for African Americans, primarily in the South. The fight for civil rights exposed deep cultural divisions between those who supported integration and racial equality and those who wanted to maintain the status quo of segregation. Southern states, in particular, resisted federal intervention, leading to intense political and cultural conflict. The passage of key legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, marked federal victories, but they also fueled long-standing racial and regional tensions that have persisted into modern political debates. 2. The Counterculture and the New Left: The 1960s saw the rise of a counterculture movement, often associated with opposition to the Vietnam War, rebellion against traditional societal norms, and the embrace of new forms of personal expression and freedom. The New Left emerged as a political force, focusing on issues such as civil rights, free speech, anti-war activism, and greater equality. The counterculture, especially among younger people, rejected many of the conservative cultural and social values of their parents' generation. Issues like drug use, sexual liberation, and nonconformity became cultural battlegrounds, with conservative Americans seeing these movements as a threat to traditional values, while progressives saw them as necessary steps toward greater personal freedom and social justice. 3. The Women’s Liberation Movement: The 1960s also saw the rise of the Women’s Liberation Movement, which sought to challenge gender norms, demand equal rights for women, and address issues such as reproductive rights, workplace equality, and gender discrimination. Feminism in the 1960s challenged deeply rooted cultural norms about women’s roles in society, which sparked backlash from conservatives and traditionalists who wanted to maintain established gender roles. 4. The Vietnam War and Anti-War Protests: The Vietnam War became a highly controversial issue in the 1960s, fueling a growing divide between those who supported the war (often older, more conservative Americans) and those who opposed it (often younger, more progressive Americans). The anti-war protests, combined with the draft, created significant cultural tensions, as many in the establishment viewed the protests as unpatriotic, while the protestors saw the war as unjust and imperialistic. The war also exacerbated the generational divide, with younger Americans challenging the authority of government and rejecting the values of the previous generation, contributing to the larger cultural shift. 5. The Rise of Conservative Backlash: In response to these social movements, there was a growing conservative backlash against what many saw as the breakdown of traditional American values. This led to the rise of the "Silent Majority," a term used by President Richard Nixon to refer to those Americans who felt that their values were being eroded by the cultural upheaval of the 1960s. Nixon’s campaign and presidency were built, in part, on restoring "law and order" and pushing back against the cultural changes of the era. This marked the beginning of the modern culture wars, where political debates increasingly centered on social and cultural issues rather than just economic or political ideologies. The backlash to the 1960s also laid the groundwork for the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s, where conservatives solidified their power by appealing to those disaffected by the cultural changes of the previous decades. 6. Urban vs. Rural Divides: The cultural changes of the 1960s also began to deepen the urban vs. rural divide in American politics. Urban areas, especially on the coasts, tended to embrace the cultural and social changes of the era, while rural areas-particularly in the South and Midwest-were more resistant and held on to traditional values. This divide has continued to grow, and even today, urban areas tend to be more liberal, multicultural, and progressive, while rural areas tend to be more conservative and traditional, reflecting the cultural rifts that began in the 1960s. 7. Secularism vs. Religious Conservatism: The 1960s also witnessed a rise in secularism, particularly as younger generations moved away from organized religion and embraced more secular or nontraditional lifestyles. This prompted a response from religious conservatives, who saw the social changes of the 1960s-particularly around issues like sex, family, and morality-as a direct attack on religious values. This cultural conflict set the stage for the rise of the Religious Right in the 1970s and 1980s, with groups like the Moral Majority becoming a significant force in American politics. Conclusion: The 1960s was a pivotal decade in which culture wars began to take center stage in American politics. These wars weren’t just about policy or economic systems but about the values that would shape American society-issues of race, gender, sexuality, religion, and national identity. The cultural movements of the 1960s fundamentally reshaped the political landscape, leading to the urban vs. rural divide, the rise of modern conservatism, and the ongoing debates over social justice, civil rights, and traditional values that continue to this day. The cultural conflicts of that era continue to resonate, with political parties increasingly reflecting the cultural identity of their supporters as much as their economic or policy preferences. These cultural fault lines laid the groundwork for the modern American political landscape, where issues like abortion, LGBTQ rights, immigration, and religious freedom dominate the national conversation, often overshadowing economic debates.

[@longjohn526]

It started out as more of a republic but that changed over the years to lean more towards a democracy. For instance Senators were originally chosen by state legislatures but that changed to be chosen by democratic elections. Originally only male property owners could vote but that changed to everyone getting a vote including women and African Americans. For some reason that was never taught in schools, at least not very clearly. Also you have to take into account that after WWII and the "Red Scare" that history and civic textbooks were radically changed and not in a good way. For some reason American politicians believed the best way to counter Soviet Propaganda was not using the truth but coming up with their Propaganda which in my opinion was a huge mistake. Take the Pledge of Allegiance for instance that was written by a Socialist by the name of Francis Bellamy with Socialism very much in mind. To 'fix" this problem the political propagandists inserted the words "under God" into the pledge magically making it no longer a Socialist pledge but a Christian pledge. Also the Pledge of Allegiance before WWII used the "Nazi salute" towards the flag which was changed early in WWII to hand over your heart. Sadly most Americans are ignorant of these historical facts .......

[@lilolmecj]

I had such an excellent US History professor in US History 101, back in 1980, he explained political theory based on the Right to Left ideology. It has served me quite well over the following 40 plus years.

[@Enyavar1]

So I hope you disagree with the "non-partisan" non-analysis that was presented here?

[@polionly9632]

I am not American, but I don't know how much I appreciate your efforts. I sometimes hear that Hitler was actually a leftist, but not many people explain it up front. Words like Hitler, Nazi, totalitarianism, etc. are used just for the sake of name-calling, to label someone, to make them stop thinking, to muzzle them from discussing. You are a very calm and insightful person. I sincerely appreciate your efforts! (from Japan)

[@Riseofziggy]

Quick Question: when you say “ I don’t know how much I appreciate your efforts “ do you mean “ you don’t know how much I appreciate your efforts “ ?

[@SadBloke]

​@@Riseofziggy☝️🤓

[@TheDeinonychus]

The sad thing is that labels such as 'Nazi' and 'Totalitarian' are often thrown around by the ones acting as such. That's why the term 'projection' is use so very often in political discourse these days. One political figure projecting their own worst qualities onto the opposition to distract people away from them doing the exact thing they are accusing their opponents of.

[@bigguy7353]

He's objectively and demonstrably far left.

[@SadBloke]

@@bigguy7353 Bro stopped the video before it even started

[@MrPanchito62]

Thank you, Metatron! This was an excellent dissection of the topic! Bravo!

[@themadmattster9647]

I prefer Ayn Rand’s term “collectivism”, since it gets rid of the increasingly antiquated idea of political “wings”

[@slevinchannel7589]

Echochambers are Neat but have you ever managed to hear-out-all-Sides, whichhh i may remember having seen in some... or all... textbooks to be the quintessential most-basic Buildingblock of the Term Integrity' and watched ANY video by Some-More-News, let aloen finished the One specifically about Metaton's quesiton here? Ya know, the one named "N_zisympathizer Elon Musk'. It ends the discussion definetively

[@matt291]

​@@slevinchannel7589 you sound skitzo.

[@Enyavar1]

Ayn Rand is herself a 20th century "thinker", and her ideas are no less antiquated today. Collectivism is also not necessarily totalitarian, and Rand's extremist understanding of individualism is also a society-breaking ideology.

[@amadeus.k331]

society is not collectivist

[@SNWWRNNG]

It doesn't really, because extreme leftists can be collectivist or individualist. Rand would disagree of course, but she's not exactly a paragon of political science.

[@JaelaOrdo]

This definitely won’t be a controversial subject. Keep it up with the great history content Metatron, one of the best channels on KZbin 👍🏾

[@metatronyt]

I'm anything but milk toast ;) Thanks!

[@jrstoelting]

@@metatronythey, I like milk toast. With a little sugar and cinnamon… mmmm…. 😂

[@maximusd26]

to be fair, you'd have to nitpick a lot to find something controversial in the vid (and on the whole channel even though some do)

[@nostrum6410]

surprised its still up given the ai censorship thats rampant on you tube

[@TheAzureNightmare]

​​@@metatronytDo you talk with TIKHistory? The Imperator Knight that is. He regularly covers WW2 stuff, so he should be a good man to talk to on that front. Especially about how Germany was Socialist during that time. I mention Germany like this because comment algorithm.

[@linguisticamente]

This is usually so controversial... I hope people first listen to Metatron, and only after decide to comment about it!

[@logangodofcandy]

There are two ways to look at this. What people say a system does and what the system does. Socialism, communism, fascism, all group based systems, act as a group based system. Ruling party rules.

[@Dokus]

nah, i think this isnt controversial at all. all based on marxism, all shit.

[@59Lemony]

​@@Dokuslow iq comment

[@LalaDepala_00]

​@@59LemonyUnfortunately the most ignorant people always think that the answers are obvious and simple.

[@PohjanKarhu]

​​@@59Lemony Yours is lower iq. Not even capable of giving any arguments. It's the equivalent of just writing "your mom" 😂

[@imonit4272]

Hell, American Left Wing isn’t even Left Wing anymore.

[@sillak5253]

I agree, asking to put a multi dimensional question into a 1d spectrum of right vs left is absolutely ridiculous.

[@prschuster]

The right calls fascism "socialism" because of government control, and they are against "big government". The left calls fascism "capitalism" because it protects the capitalist class and dismantles labor unions. In reality, it's mostly totalitarian more than anything.

[@user-ur4zi5oe9e]

Finding your channel was a blessing. I greatly appreciate your unbiased approach to everything and how well you articulate the information

[@metatronyt]

I appreciate that and welcome

[@Ahrlin9]

@@metatronyt Does it bother you that the comments section to this video is a cesspit full of delusional conservatives claiming that the Nazis were left wing? Just out of curiosity. You're not unbiased. You're just spoonfeeding conservatives the comforting lie that the Nazis weren't a far-right party. They love you for it, so call you unbiased.

[@barccy]

Confining all the rest of history to French Revolutionary terms is like trying to understand the real world through the lens of Harry Potter.

[@willguggn2]

You either want to abolish (existing) hierarchies, which is left-wing, or want to uphold or (re-)strengthen them, which is right wing. It's not that complicated.

[@filiprohn1643]

​@@willguggn2 Then as soon as systemic opposition takes charge it turns from left to right wing. A bit useless definition if you ask me

[@willguggn2]

@@filiprohn1643 It's quite sensible and works regardless of the time frame. Liberalism was a leftist ideology which led to revolution, now it is the status quo defended by conservatives/right-wingers in western countries. This is how it's consistently handled in the political sciences.

[@johnweatherby8718]

Yes and it has gotten even worse since the spectrum has been rewritten to some left is Marx and the right is Hitler writing liberalism out of the spectrum, to others it is if you redistribute to the poor or the wealthy and fabricate arguments that there is redistribution to the wealthy because they don't understand economics and how in markets you provide something to get money, etc. The whole thing is meaningless when pushed most people yelling left or right wing can't give you a definition of either wing. They just see it as an insult.

[@johnweatherby8718]

@@willguggn2 One of the many definitions. Just because you use this definition doesn't mean everyone does. You don't see the point here. The terms means very different things to different ideologies. You use a definition SOME Marxists use others define it as redistribution to the workers (not poor) vs. redistribution to the wealthy. Some define it in terms of either you are Nazi or a communist or something in between writing out liberalism. So it is complicated because there is absolutely no agreement on the terms. What Barccy states is not the left/right spectrum that everyone uses. In that one the left of the King was liberalism and individuality, the right of the King (the honored position) was collectivism and authoritarianism consolidating power into one man for the "good" of the collective. In modern terms due to Marxist obfuscation that are against hierarchies and for anarchy ignoring the hard right wing authoritarian coercion prescribed to transform people into new socialist man to get there they claim they are left but they are HARD HARD right by French Revolution standards and the other side is more left pushing individualism. Left and right is oversimplification full of sound and fury while signifying nothing. It is meaningless when so many mean very different things when they use the term. Not even all Marxists agree on your definition.

[@410cultivar]

The issue is, the definition of what left and right is changes with culture

[@step6584]

I’m becoming increasingly convinced that trying to box things into either “right” or “left” is futile because everything seems more nuanced than that. Edit: In no way am I justifying or sympathizing with any political ideologies. That was not the intent of this comment.

[@MikeJones-wp2mw]

The issues are divided into the two political parties very carefully by think tanks that intentionally maintain the balance of the parties at 50/50% and even the issues themselves are picked for this reason. Haven't you ever thought to yourself, of all the things we could be arguing about this stupid shit is what we can't agree on? That is because they designed the conflict, as a method of distracting us from the truth. The truth being that any of the real issues, the course the nation is taking, that humanity is taking, the plans for and goals of the country aren't even told to us. They don't care what our opinion is, we have no say in those decisions so they don't even tell us what they are. Any politicians you vote for come out of a pool of people that were pre selected by the actual rulers of the country. All of them are bound to servitude through blackmail and threats. Epstein Island was simply part of that system of maintaining control over them. P. Diddy did the same thing but for the music industry. Did you ever wonder why so many celebrities that we now know to be human garbage were constantly sucking up to Trump before he got into politics? They were under orders to compromise him, they wanted dirt on him. He's completely out of their ability to control and they hate it. The things they tried blackmailing him on he just laughed. He doesn't even apologize. It's awesome. But it's also why now they have no other option but to kill him if they can. Otherwise against all odds we will be in a position for the first time in a long time where we have purged our government of corruption. If everything goes as planned at least.

[@harrisaxer2651]

@@MikeJones-wp2mw 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@The_Dungeon_Smith]

Muddy water hides the biggest crocodiles. Keeping it simple is not a bad thing. There is no nuance.

[@Abattoir23]

Except in America, the "us vs them" rhetoric creates division. Crocker Barrel added a vegan option to their menu. Not replace, add. Guess which party threw a fit. That shouldn't even be political. Yet, it is.

[@FreedomAndLiberty2024]

The so called nuance is nothing more than obfuscation. Right and left is really very simple: more power is given to the government the further left a political ideology is, while more power is given to the people the further right a political ideology is. Therefore, the extreme left would be an authoritarian dictatorship and the extreme right would be anarchy. Most political ideologies lie somewhere between the two extremes.

[@alanb287]

Tyranny is tyranny. Somebody made up left vs. right but it's really just tyranny vs. freedom.

[@apocolypse11]

Bingo

[@idedwards100]

Tyranny is a Big State; freedom is a Small state.

[@Lightning613]

F D R - he called Fascism as Right Wing as an overly simplified means to get the American population accept being allied with Stalin’s U.S.S.R.while being at war with Benito Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany.

[@TheMDHoover]

What does it matter if it is the left boot or the right boot standing on your neck.

[@alanb287]

@@TheMDHoover The left and the right are one in the same

[@JuliusAntonius77]

Hey guys, I actually wrote a book around that topic and wanted to point out a few things I see different when looking at primary sources. Overall, Metatron did a great job with the Video. However, to actually come to a far deeper conclusion, the Video would need to be way longer. For example, it would have been interesting to dive deeper into the question of who he saw actually as his enemies and how his "racism" actually worked. In my book, I also looked deep into the economic structure of the National Socialists. But to answer the main question of the Video out of my perspective, I have to point out that Hitler himself saw his ideology as one of the "third way", which was neither right nor left. Basically he argued that Fascism, Nazism and Communism are similar due to the fact that all of them have a "Weltanschauung", a "World view", something that differiatet them from the "Bourgeois" parties, who's politicians are "cowards" and are only after the money. This third way was in the middle of the political spectrum. I agree with Metatron, however, that there his ideas were both left and right out of today's sight. Economical, he was clearly left winged. (Yes, he crushed the trade unions but merged them together into the biggest one the world has ever seen. In fact, many companies complained about the trade union(DAF) being so influencal that they could demand everything for the workers and the Company can't refuse. The Industry got also combined into "Kartelle". They got controlled and had to follow the politics of the state. Everyone who refused, got crushed or had to sell their business. (Happened to Junkers). In the end, the state didn't own but control all of the economy.) Everything in the Reich was made for the German people. This destroyed the economy, it was so unhealthy that Hitler had no choice but to annex and attack other nations, to steal their wealth. (That's why he couldn't stop expanding). The prices for certain things got frozen as well. And companies weren't allowed to make a big profit. My point is. The whole economy was broken and was only there to improve the standard of living of the German people and prepare for war. Still, he was in many policies also right winged. So Metatron is 100% correct, if he says that it is not good to look at the whole thing out of a modern "Left" and "Right" perspective. He hated Jews, Gypsies, Bourgeoisie, Religions, Monarchists, Bolsheviks and some other groups. For this there is enough evidence. (All listed in my book). So he hated both, Right and Lefts. He was more afraid of Communists tho, that's why he mostly imprisoned those. Because, as already mentioned, he said that conservatives are "Cowards", as are monarchists. So he wasn't afraid of those. There is so much more here, but this is already too long. Just want to say, this is just my perspective, based on the evidence I read through for my book (Most primary sources), if someone disagrees or anything, I totally understand. Would love to hear other opinions, but in a civilized manner. Thank you. I am always open to learn. If someone is interested, that's the name of my book : Hitlers Mind: An Overview Of Hitlers Politics

[@RyanJSmith]

You wrote out this whole comment just to advertise your book, mentioning it 5 times, so it's kinda hilarious that not only did you forget to apostrophise "Hitler's" when you finally say the title, but that any attempt to search for it yields no results

[@AgraxGaming]

Can't find the book, my friend. Anywhere

[@JuliusAntonius77]

@@RyanJSmith Thank you for your comment. I just wanted to point out where I got my evidence from and that I did a lot of research in that topic. True, ofc I also want to sell my book. But yes it is missing, you are correct. I can't change it any more, tho, which is very unlucky. I will correct it, tho, if I create a new version of the book, maybe with some additions. But thank you for pointing it out! Really appreciate it! Critics are always welcome.

[@TheRestedOne]

@@AgraxGaming Change "Overview" to "Overwiev" for anyone interested. For whatever reason there's a typo on the listing.

[@Ingolenuru]

Metatron didn't mention any policies of the American right that Hitler followed or used.

[@Liberty-LLama]

Never defined your terms on what makes something right wing or left wing.

[@captainobvious-CH]

Correct - few things are more annoying that this absence of definition. "The left" is easily identified - at least we can name major representatives who were immensely influential: Marx & Engels largely defined The Left. So what were their values, based on their books, articles and letters? Racism, antisemitism, misogyny, homophobia, German Nationalism.

[@StressLevel100]

I just asked google if Nazi was a slur and it said "Nazism is far right socialism" ignoring the fact that's completely contradictory, it's not even what I asked. Google's bias is so damn clear lmao

[@dorugoramon0518]

Nazism is only far right in comparison to communism, which google seems to be implying they are.

[@tjones2ful]

Yep.

[@legoman6488]

Based Google confirmed. Nazism (National Socialism) is socialist. It is far right. It it Fascist. These are not contradictory.

[@legoman6488]

not sure where my first reply went? Anyway, Nazism is absolutely far right, that's why (some(many)) far right parties and groups today like the AFD is Germany have a Nazi ideology and links to openly Nazi groups. Far right racists often use flags with designs based on the nazi flag or Italian fascist symbols. They reuse nazi propaganda against Jews as well. Nazism is also socialist, most definitely. It is a form of Socialism called National Socialism, which it was Nazi means, as you know. Socialism is usually left wing (almost always) but the Nazis and some other Fascists like the British Fascists and Nazis in the BUF (British Union of Fascists) were right wing socialists.

[@tjones2ful]

@@legoman6488 The left and right is opposite in other countries. You have to look at what Nazism stands for. Censorship and centralized government is an American left ideology.

[@squidsquad6286]

Were Hitler’s comments about Islam true? Where he apparently praised Islam for being stronger and more militaristic than Christianity? And that he wished Germany was Muslim instead of Christian?

[@torbenkristiansen2742]

Critical/central question. And a hallmark of contemporary leftist policies.

[@nostrum6410]

so he was playing the long game?

[@saber-nn7qt]

No

[@torbenkristiansen2742]

@@saber-nn7qt EU is said to be the manifestation of the Fourth Reich, and the contemporary policies is one such pointer. Which at any rate is a better explanation than a mere "no".

[@richardaubrecht2822]

He disliked Arabs and other Muslims as racial mongrels, but liked Islam as "warrior's religion". He did not wish to convert Germany to Islam though - he wanted gradually replace all ideologies with his own, and was practical enough to let those mongrels to fight on his side if they wanted to.

[@SenBilbo]

There is an American professor called Lawrence Birken who wrote an excellent political science book called Hitler as Philosophe, which stated that Hitlerism/National Socialism was very much based on Enlightenment nationalism (the fraternity of Egalite, Fraternitie, and Libertie) and that Hitler wanted and planned a much more mixed and heavily socialist economy for Germany after the war was won. I think that fascism was always a mix of left and right. In some sense, it was beyond this oversimplified binary system that didn't even make profound sense during the French Revolution. If one says that left/right are divided by statism versus independence, then fascism can be called a left wing movement. If one says that left/right are divided by cosmopolitanism versus nationalism, then fascism can be called a right wing movement.

[@black-redpill3]

It's leftism that concealed the most impossible parts of communism to the right, but still seeks to establish the "realistic" communist apparatus as its end goal.

[@Errtuabyss]

Very good post. Which will probably be ignored as most people don't know about his, don't understand it and don't know what to do with it.. The "Enlightenment nationalism" is much closer to what the NSDAP was than any attempt of modern definitions and even the definitions of the time. They called themselves both right- and left-wing exactly because of the reasons you mentioned. As opposition, when they used the rhetoric of the oppressed revolutionary, they called themselves mainly left-wing. The more power they got the more the rhetoric shifted to wanting to conserve the ideals of the glorious past, both as with the French Revolution and the Enlightenment and of the germans as people. If you understand this you see that the whole question becomes meaningless. The lables, especially with their modern meanings, are useless to describe the NSDAP.

[@the_black_douglas9041]

Yes. And Prof John Mearsheimer points out that the only two congenital aggressors in modern history were Napoleon and Hitler.

[@here_be_dragons9184]

People compare sizing of property by the communists to sizing of property by the Ns. The thing is for the communists it was an end while for the Ns it was a mean to the greatness of racial group. Communists claim they do it for the people. Ns do it for the greatness of the Nation (or for them the race) but to them the nation not really is the people but more like the idea, people are supposed to be ready to sacrifice to the idea.

[@TheDeinonychus]

That's not an entirely unfair perspective to take. Unfortunately too many people look at the political landscape as a sliding scale, when in reality it is far more like a graph. An assessment of right vs left only gives you half of someone's political views, if even that much.

[@feartheghus]

Having talked to nazis they’d call it “the third way” or “third option” or any other form of it. It does share left wing values in that it is socialist in nature and that fascism was birthed from socialism and specifically the socialist Mussolini. Many of the quotes in mein kampf are nigh indistinguishable from the communist manifesto. However, there is confusion for people calling it right or left wing because American right wing and European right wing refer to a kind of libertarianism and monarchism respectively, and a mix of other similar-enough ideologies or branches thereof. So when a right winger from America hears nazism called right wing it makes no sense because what he just heard is approximately “the national socialists who held strict price controls and production quotas and held incredibly authoritarian government power are part of the group that likes minimal government, low taxes, and no or nearly no economic meddling.” These two sets of policy can’t fit together. From the communist side they were constantly fighting fasicsts in the same way Protestants and Catholics fought. Both believe in Christ but the differences were enough to spark warfare. The fascists and communists might both care specifically for socialism, collectivism, and state power, they still have minor differences even if only in appearance and they are willing to fight over it. Regarding book destruction, the Soviet Union destroyed even more books than the nazis did, and communist china is famous for the cultural revolution where they destroyed nearly any form of culture, including historical buildings, and much of their own historical records, leaving only what could be twisted to their ideology’s benefit, and the new products had to fit within those lines as well.

[@oliversmith9200]

Mussolini's Italy: Antonio Gramsci lived long enough to make it to the prison, and died there.

[@bloody4558]

Good riddance, the guy was a genius, but he was far, far worse than both Fascists and Nazi. Remember this, if a totalitarian leader arrested you while calling you a danger to society, that doesn't mean you are a hero, but far worse than the villains themselves

[@Bialy_1]

His ideas live in EU to this very day...

[@catfinity8799]

​@@bloody4558 And you would be arrested as a danger to society for supporting whatever your political ideology is. That doesn't mean you're worse than them. Is Gramsci worse than the Italian Fascists? IDK, but his arrest tells us nothing.

[@bloody4558]

@@catfinity8799 Do you know what exactly is Gramsci's ideology? Basically it's the complete destruction of the long estabilished virtues and ideals using a fake ideology(I'm not exaggerating, Gramsci's book outright says that the content of the idelogy being sold is irrelevant, what matters is the destruction of people's trust in the estabilished values and virtues) to pervert people's image of them, inverting everyone's values in the process. His ideas were genius, but evil to the core. Because he believed that our society based on rules had reached it's pinacle, he wanted to recreate society from scratch, using new Ideas based on Marxist theories. Needless to say that even as cruel as Mussolini was, he thought Gramsci's ideas passed every single limit concievable, that's why he ordered Gramsci's arrest.

[@Mendaz]

@@bloody4558 Definitely not worse than the Fascists and Nazis, especially since he never had power. Gramsci was neither a Leninist either. lol

[@_Dovar_]

They were surely right about modern "art". And usury. And communism.

[@fibanocci314]

Seems to me like the idea of a right-left dichotomy was a theory someone proposed and we've all been trying to fit those labels to the real world for a while but it turns out the theory was wrong so now it's time to ditch it and focus on other labels.

[@JarlaxleBaenre1987]

It actually is just based on seating arrangements. First in the National Assembly in the late 1700s and then later adopted in the first German Parliament.

[@LibertarianGalt]

Check out Killing History by Lk Samuels which highlights what it was and why it was subverted.

[@johnnyjohn-johnson7738]

The whole notion of "left" and "right" wing came from the French Revolution, the world has become more complex since then.

[@Sitbear]

It’s not wrong. There’s underlying values each side holds, but you can’t understand so you just assumed there must be nothing to it. You’re not being nuanced, you’re just unobservant.

[@fibanocci314]

@Derrickthepeng And you're just using ad hominem instead of the great observational powers and depth of knowledge you're implying you have

[@RollerCoaster-ok7qw]

And Hitler was of course left-wing in his social policy. The comparison between his Reich and the later GDR shows some parallels: The youth who were indoctrinated into state organizations. Compulsory membership in organizations for workers. The vacation organizations that organized holidays for workers. Hitler once said that the children join the Hitler Youth, then they become soldiers, then they come to other party organizations. They wont be free for the rest of their live said Hitler. The GDR handled it the same way.

[@jaelge]

02:37 ¨Who´d have thought the media was full of sh!t? (nailed it).

[@s1gnor3Gepett0]

Better watch this before they take it down

[@nostrum6410]

thinking the same thing

[@leongashwig]

it wont be taken down because it doesnt deny any events

[@apocolypse11]

The jews approved of this one the good ones are in bitchute.

[@TheZombiesAreComing]

@@leongashwig You'd be surprised. censorship is out of control

[@what-oy8il]

This is normie talks. No one will take it down.

[@keymaker2112]

It reminds me of: "Who was the Right-winger, Jefferson or Hamilton?" The question has no substance within the historical context of the time, and makes even less sense when we try to apply their views to modern politics. If you were to go policy by policy you'd quickly realize that, in the most rudimentary sense, each of the American political parties APPEARS to hold 1/2 of each of their political positions, but because the reasoning employed to arrive at those positions is so discordant from that of Jefferson and Hamilton, it really makes no sense. Superficial politics is a consequence of superficial historical understanding.

[@TheLola2824]

Agree and disagree. You can if you look at it from what they went by which was federalist and anti-federalist. And again we're back to government/state power vs. individual agency. That doesn't change even with time. One side will always advocate for more state expansion than the other. I do agree that they were both more libertarian (US based) compared to all of us today but one was an advocate of a stronger federal government while the other was an advocate of state rights and individual rights. I'm pretty sure from that you can make a pretty good comparison of who is closer to which even in today's politics -- at least in terms of who is advocating for what. If you strip it all away it always comes down to state power vs. individual -- in a federation of states or countries, that translates into the federal power vs. individual state or country. It is translatable through time if you only focus on government itself as an institution. What I do agree with you on is that people and humans in general are complex and history is complex. So there is what they believed and argued for but Hamilton even as a federalist had his populist moments and Jefferson even as an anti-federalist had to come to terms with using federal power in office -- maybe even going beyond what he initially intended. So, it's not so much that ideologies change per se -- it's just that arguing or contemplating a political stance is not the same as observing the entire life of a person with ups and downs and changing minds.

[@johnweber4577]

I mean, I would probably say Hamilton was the right-winger and Jefferson the left-winger but also that in more recent times Republicans essentially seek Hamiltonian ends by Jeffersonian means while Democrats likewise seek Jeffersonian ends by Hamiltonian means. Though I do agree that it doesn’t necessarily work in a one-to-one sort of way and people tend to be far too superficial when discussing history.

[@davidmayers8981]

Thank you. At 55 years old I now understand. It has beeng a question I have struggled with for years. Brilliant presentation and explanation.

[@JammyONE]

Well, in a german news paper in the mid to late 30's, Hitler talked about how national socialism was a vehicle for social justice.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

He also claimed socialists as we know it was hijacked from "true socialism" which he called national socialism. So he completely denounced traditional left wing socialism then and there. Thus not left wing. It was an interview by an American Nazi. You can look up the exact quote.

[@oz_jones]

​@@neurofiedyamato8763 😂 cope and seethe. Adi was left as they come, so was Benito.

[@Lynximus]

​@@oz_jones lmao sure buddy. Keep displaying your embarrassing level of historical and political understanding

[@apocolypse11]

But they label him international socialist now days. 😂

[@glass_knuckles]

@@oz_jones buddy, what part of militarist nationalism and state sponsored racism sounds like left wing politics to you? How interesting few in this comment section want to engage with that

[@dominicsheldon6179]

Wrong framing....why would an idea of left-right from the French revolution make sense 130 years later. Its group rights (Communism and Nazism) over individual rights VS individual rights over group (liberty).

[@Avghistorian77]

Thats such an American perspective, lol.

[@dominicsheldon6179]

@@Avghistorian77 I am not American. How can a country of 300 million + have a unified perspective? If you see the world through a left-right perspective and decide that Nazism, Fascism and Marxism all fall within it - please justify why the NAZIs were right wing?

[@bencruz563]

Applying modern standards to historical situations is fine if it is a means of helping modern folk understand, but the left/right political spectrum is not even an accurate model to gauge modern policies let alone historical policies.

[@ravanpee1325]

Ask everyone in German and we know that we voted far right 😂

[@bencruz563]

@@ravanpee1325 Our governments are keen propagandists.

[@TricksterSquad]

Well last I checked Socialism and Communism is Authoritarian Left Wing. So hope that helps with the answer.

[@billbliss1518]

Excellent, frankly, amazing video. Came here from VTH and subscribed. Know that your nuanced analysis will be added to my high school history classes. I’ve always sort of known to be true what you say, but I’ve never seen it explained so detailed and succinctly. Thank you!

[@whothefluff]

The first step should have been providing the definitions of left-wing and right-wing you used for your analysis

[@bewawolf19]

Honestly the issue with anyone ever attempting to answer the question is the fact that the terms "Left" and "Right" wing are utterly stupid and useless. I wish everyone stopped using a measuring system based off of where a much of psychopathic Frenchmen sat in a room.

[@tommythecat4961]

A big problem in defining national socialism as right or left wing, as with fascism, is that they changed policies many times, depending on what the public was thinking, tactical vs strategic objectives, the economy, and much more. Some of their policies favored workers, many others favored industrialists. They told women they were mothers of nations, but also that they should stay home and be subordinate. They had agreements with the Church, but planned to get rid of it as soon as possible, same thing with the USSR. As with many things, they didn't neatly fit into a box, those were complicated years to say the least, and politics was no exception. I would say they were radical right as opposed to conservative right, so they had elements commonly associated with left wing groups but only similar in shape, not substance. But a lot of people will read this and understand "therefore Stalin was a great guy" but it's NOT what I'm saying at all.

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

Socialism is left, nationalism is right so national socialism is centered. Does not make sense till you understand the three Telos model

[@shadeaquaticbreeder2914]

18:52 what is America's cultures like to a non American? Idk if you have never lived here but it'd be interesting to hear what people outside of here see.

[@nelsonmcatee3721]

This is the best explanation I've heard and also the best vocabulary. 👌

[@utubemewatch]

TIKhistory on KZbin has numerous videos on this. But he doesn’t split the baby. He’s not afraid to say the truth. National Socialism is animated by radical left wing ideology along every salient level of analysis. If Metatrin understood politics Val philosophy a bit deeper he would admit this - I don’t think he showed even a single way it’s “right wing”.

[@eufrosniad994]

@@utubemewatch Yea, I feel like he did not try to understand if the policies were leftist as understood today or more right wing. Instead, he went on to explain how left and right today did not mean the same in Europe at that time period. He completely missed the point in my opinion.

[@scottbeavan6896]

In Australia, our right wing political party is called the liberal party

[@gareth2736]

@@scottbeavan6896 and North Korea is allegedly a democracy!

[@ste13]

Liberalism is right-wing in most countries that have more that 2 political parties. If the are only one or two political parties names mean nothing.

[@dontcomply3976]

​@@ste13No generally centrist

[@Neion8]

This is true, but the old axis was: Liberalism-Conservatism-Fundamentalism Liberalism being left wing, conservatism being centrism and fundamentalism being right wing. This is important to note when people start chatting BS about 'course correcting' into extreme leftism because things are too right wing. If we course correct much more, we'll be going in circles. We threw centrists to the right wing, then we threw leftists to the right wing; then we panic about the growth of the right wing. There is no victory in directional politics- only growing extremes.

[@gareth2736]

@@Neion8 sounds like you are talking about theology rather than politics. Fundamentalism is a super conservative religious position rather than a normal description of a political position

[@arahantiusdetache5103]

Great video, I really hope people sit still long enough to understand what you're saying. Obviously words mean nothing due to the fact that results are the true indicator of intent but I don't know that many people are patient enough to understand your final message. I really hope these videos receive the attention they absolutely deserve.

[@thinkersreasoning1575]

I will not finish this video after discovering it has no bibliography or citation in the description from which I can easily access the material that backs this video.

[@boudecia22]

Then stop being so lazy and do ypur own research. Am italiam guy "invemted" fascism. Benito somethong, not mussolini. I forget hos last name. Fascism meams surrenderimg individual freedoms for the good of the state. The opposite of conservative. Go look up who inventrd fascism. Dont take my word for it.

[@TheDummbob]

you are clearly blinded by some weird framings ever heard about radical left anarchists?

[@OfficialWardo6]

20 million ukranians died of starvation under Stalin

[@genautelevishn5999]

60 million total deaths in ussr not counting soldiers

[@ajaysidhu471]

Aye?

[@OfficialWardo6]

@ yea

[@chipsounder4633]

The way i see it. This is like arguing whether the number painted on the street is a 6 or a 9. Same behaviour, different colour hat.

[@dorkking100]

@11 minutes. The communist absolutely cared about identity politics. The Soviet Union encouraged minorities languages to be used in their homeland. Communist officials were often forced to learn the languages of the Republics that they represented. Different ethnic groups were also given separate Republicans. This does not make them good, they did so much terrible stuff. It is a notable difference between the communist and Nazis. Nazis purged minorities, disabled, and other unwanted people while the Soviet purged classes and slaughter people they deemed dangerous to the state. The Soviets did not slaughter with the intention of killing off ethnic groups. Their genocides were not meant to fully destroy races.

[@Le_Rappel_des_oiseaux]

Agree, but soviets did not genociide someone at all.

[@skwills1629]

Treu byt Mysleading on Ray SSS. Sry Fer Odd Spaylong Tybe Oh Yew After Me, Sovyat PPolycy was Dryven by Aye THey Istism Merx Aysm, and They also were not Staytists. THey Sought eventyal Abolition of Dee Stayte.

[@dorkking100]

​@@Le_Rappel_des_oiseaux The Holodomor and the subsequent attempt to erase Ukrainian cultural was a genocide. I'd consider it a genocide worst than trying to civilize indigenous Americans through reeducation. If you disagree with both of these things being a genocide then it is a despicable crime against humanity. If you think nothing happened, then I'm surprised you had enough IQ to type.

[@MisterMisanthropeEsquire]

Yet they killed people who likely didn't deserve to die just like the nazis. Their beliefs in the right of their actions "for the common good" is irrelevant for both of them. The reasons for the killing doesn't make one inherently less evil.

[@cracmar03]

@@Le_Rappel_des_oiseaux I mean Stalin definately starved half of Ukraine as punishment for population there. So that could quite count.

[@chowrites6179]

So if we use the horseshoe method, with the his main talking points, and the fact that he was very aggressive in his politicking, what that tells me is that he was, essentially, a "Authoritarian Centrist" in modern terms.

[@varelion]

Private property: As a National Socialist you could accumulate "private property". But only if the party gave it to you for your merit. Heydrich got the big villa at the lake Wannsee taken form the former Jewish owner. Ranking high in the party meant access to privileges and luxury as it is still custom in North Korea, China etc.

[@TheDummbob]

thus its clearly not a left wing system, when you underly a sensible Definition of leftist

[@varelion]

@@TheDummbob I go with realtity, not with the fairy-tales they told us.

[@glass_knuckles]

@@varelion what part of communism or left wing politics involves elevation of a master race? where does Marx say this in the communist manifesto? I'll wait for your answer

[@varelion]

@@glass_knuckles It's not a master race that real existent 'communist' societies create but master classes. This was not wanted by Marx but it has become a custom. Again the masses are ruled by an elite, the masters of the party. And on top of the society there is a replacement of a sacred king, tzar or emperor. This is the reality and what happened to communist idea of a classless society.

[@PuggiTheGreat]

My opinion for what it’s worth. The distinction I mostly or often make is… the “National” Socialists vs “International” Socialists… both are totalitarian and they just fight over which version of Totalitarian Socialism they prefer. Both are undesirable. As for fascism, the ideology may differ in places but the outcomes are the same, Totalitarianism and the death of all opponents…

[@Creslin321]

I think your overall point is well made. With some exceptions, most American political arguments between the right and left are arguments that all happen within the “liberal” space. Both conservatives and “American liberals” are actually liberals. They both agree with some form of mixed economy, private ownership of property, rule of law, and some level of democracy. The disagreements are just to what degree to we want each of these things. But Nazis and Soviet communists are ILLIBERAL. They exist outside of the liberal sphere altogether. So instead of us worrying about which liberal political faction is most like the Nazis, we should be more concerned with NOT letting actual illiberals ever gain control.

[@cp1cupcake]

I just want to know which "American liberals" you have been talking to. Most of them and communists pretending they are not extremists.

[@flyingmonkeydeathsquadronc968]

The American right tends toward classical English liberalism while the American Left tends toward classical French liberalism which ends up follows the authoritarian lines that brought us Maximilien Robespierre.

[@Creslin321]

@@flyingmonkeydeathsquadronc968 the American right’s current party leader and presidential candidate is Donald Trump, a fascist, so I’m going to have to disagree.

[@flyingmonkeydeathsquadronc968]

@@Creslin321 except he's not a fascist, that is democrat defamation intended to scare their base and unaware independent voters. Nothing about his agenda 47, his first four years, or anything he has said in context amounts to fascism. Your a victim of fear tactics and propaganda.

[@flyingmonkeydeathsquadronc968]

@@Creslin321 every republican presidential candidate since Eisenhour has been falsely called a fascist by democrats

[@kurtcpi5670]

I agree with the vast majority of this analysis. The problem of context, be it geographical, political, temporal, or racial, is that it's an "Overton Window" perception. It really doesn't matter whether the left/right perception of the Nazi's in the 1930s and 40s was different from today's. When you make statements intended for the modern masses, it's critical to do so using references that can be applied to THEIR context since that's where their brains live. Naziism has properties of what would be considered both "right" and "left". It needs to be pointed out that terms like "liberal" are also temporally dependent. Neither the right nor the left, at least in the US, are liberal by definition. Ultimate liberalism is anarchy, and the closest thing we have politically to liberalism in the US would be the Libertarian Party. In the 1960s, Libertarians were decidedly left of center for the time. Today they're rapidly shifting to the right. In terms of modern context, again based on the US political spectrum, the Nazis would be considered left. The most notable aspects, government control of business; blaming problems on race-based scapegoats; public services for healthcare, welfare, etc.; collectivity over individuality. These are very much leftist ideals in the US. The farther left you go, the more adherence to those tenets. The one major aspect remaining is military expansion/imperialism, which until recently was the domain of the right. But over the last 35 years or so, that too has gradually become the realm of the left.

[@shamanahaboolist]

The overton window is just a measure of how stupid and gullible people are.

[@christianblomqvist3406]

Left and right doesn't matter here, its liberalism vs authoritarianism.

[@Bobbel888]

Kitty Werthmann, Holocaust surviver, casted a clear statement on how socialist Hitler's Austria was after being included by a People's Referendum, not annected as the narrative of the victorious powers of WWII tends to claim.

[@charlesqbanks]

I love your stuff, Metatron! Thank you so much for bringing light to this issue. In school I was taught that Nazism was right wing, and Communism was left wing in the strongest of terms, and that while totalitarian, socialism and communism at least isn't as bad as Nazism. To my shock and surprise, when I got out of school and actually read up on Nazism, I found elements of socialism! 🤯 Big government is dangerous, no matter who the politicians say they are, or which direction they say they ascribe to.

[@xLegionaryxx]

I feel like the ending here is missing out a core part of all ideologies and those who believe in them. Hitler was not totalitarian because he wanted personal power. He was totalitarian soo he could implement a national socialist system that he thought was required to guide his people forward into a greater future. Hitler like most leaders driven by ideology are not Machiavellian. They are people who thought they’re ends justified the means.

[@StarboyXL9]

Yeah, sadly Metatron missed that part, too much nuance for even him apparently

[@xLegionaryxx]

@@StarboyXL9 you kind of have to have the realisation (which is hard when you’ve grown up in a liberal society where power is treated as inherently something only those who are evil seek) that most absolutist ideologies do not see themselves as evil and instead see themselves as the absolute good. It’s why the modern day left and modern day right essentially are going down the path of political absolutism because the thought process and ideals behind the two are soo alien to each other that to be against one side or the other marks you as immoral and innately evil.

[@Ingolenuru]

That is massively too generic. Just because you believe that the ends justifies the means does NOT mean that you believe authoritarian or totalitarian ideals are acceptable. The 13 colonies in America believed the ends justified the means so they went to war with England to throw off the power put upon their necks but they were NOT authoritarian or totalitarian. Your example is massively skewed to your political ideology.

[@xLegionaryxx]

@@Ingolenuru did I say that the ends justifies the means made him authoritarian or totalitarian. No. lol

[@gabingston3430]

If one defines Left vs Right as big government vs small government with regards to economics, which is how a lot of American Conservatives and Libertarians would, then Nazism would be left wing. If Left vs Right is egalitarianism vs hierarchy, though, which is how Leftists tend to view it, then Nazism is definitely right wing. There are probably a good dozen or so of these dualities that could be used to define Left vs Right IMHO, but these are two useful examples I thought of. I'm certain the replies to my comment will be civil and cordial.

[@davidfrederiksen3185]

Yea left vs right is a lot more complex and would in most cases require you to read at least a few thousand pages per ideology to get the idea. The thing is most people have a very weak knowledge about the Basics of political science

[@Ironhardt]

Using the American definition, conservatives would be left 😂😂

[@FilipCordas]

Nazi party biggest influence was FDR democratic party, you can look it up from the new deal to the eugenics laws where pretty much the same. As for fascism was much more a Catholic inspired. But also had strong Communist influence, with Giovanni Gentile being a Hegelian and a Marxist. I mean any modern lefties would sign the Fascist Manifesto if they didn't know what it is. There were no dualities people just don't know what they stood for.

[@sebastianlavallee706]

That's because "Big government vs small government" is you being fed Reaganomics. Left vs right on economics is also a question of hierarchies: essentially workers vs bosses.

[@gabingston3430]

@@sebastianlavallee706 I wasn't stating what I personally believed, rather attempting to explain each side's viewpoint.

[@Wigmaster_James]

Most intelligent video on this topic i can find and also true objectivity. Thank you for your dedication to non bias political content. Instantly subscribed