Fix audio man

Any more demonetization risk and you are gonna end up paying money to youtube!

you turned into a national 'socialist' (also known as NAZI's)

Ah Yes, the historical war when Persia in The Congo invaded roman Mozambique, who was based in Columbia 👏👏

Man, i got an ad (YT ad) at the start of the vid, maybe you actually got monetisation on it!

dont the usa does that?

@@matiasdiaz8913 nah the USA doesn’t rely on shipping food supplies from countries home to stave off starvation and rationing. If anything the US ships food into the nations it invades. Plus the US really doesn’t have a closed economy.

@@matiasdiaz8913 nah, the Germans had a closed economy (autaurky), and basically ran on plundering conquered lands to fuel the war machine. On top of this, germany doesn't have nearly as good of a geographic position as the USA (one of the reasons they could maintain isolationism.) Basically, the usa is neither on a war or closed economy.

@Sam Wallace Also known for being neighboring countries

@Sam Wallace pretty dumb idea tho

Don’t worry, I feel you my dude.

They are similar enough. Though there are some major differences.

National Socialism is a fascist ideology focused mainly on settler colonialism and the idea of a master race. Fascists can use anything as the basis of their ideology, Italian fascists used machoism, while german fascism (national socialism) used race which is the what most fascists use for their exclusionary beliefs. No matter what, fascism is a dangerous ideology that is about exclusion and ends up bringing murder to the outgroup

@@SuhailGanondorf1999Singh also a very important characteristic of fascism is the economic alternative to both capitalism and socialism which is why its sometimes called "the third way" and this is also shared by national socialism as well as other ideologies such as falangism

@@SuhailGanondorf1999Singh one of the interesting things is how National Socialism is a branch off of Babeuf’s original concept much like Marxism which is a parallel branch. Just replacing class with racial groups, though both operate off of the concept of the shrinking markets theory which seems to lead to failure since it is a keystone belief which is heavily flawed.

I didn't get it at the start. Now I do.

True

@「 Deadpoppin 」 shut up

@「 Deadpoppin 」 I’m Russian…

@「 Deadpoppin 」 *you’re

Yes

only in america

if there are no minorities, you can't have inequality

U mean the SS

TheNationalSocialStreamers

Omg stfu. Just use real words, what is it with y’all that you use dog whistles everywhere. Like why don’t you people ever just say what you mean without hiding behind dog whistles

@@user-lm8ke9sz5n ok cringelord

@@user-lm8ke9sz5n ((()))

Probably something something with the J* people, y'know

Tunisia isn’t in the game yet, if it ever will be.

@@thegamingallosaurus7281 it is in Democrary 3 Africa

If I ever do play the game I promise I’ll bring Tunisia to greatness

And the Olympics

It would actually be a pretty fun conversation if it stays polite.

If the people discussing fascism are polite that somehow makes it worse

@@philip8498 Why?

@@maxmusterman9262 cause let’s be real some people are gonna be literal fascists and they should not be treated with toleration

and then none of which happened...

Well, we watch him becoming a fascist dictator so i think that ship has sailed

I mean he could reapply. I don't think they'd want to reject him now, even if they could.

he has returned to roots of Italian fasist dictators even tho he is in germany

Because that's what happens when you are a dictator

Ehhhh economically they were a lot more left wing and in a game where economy is one of the main things it will send them over pretty quick.

Because fascism is a form of complete government control of the economy, which is left wing by definition

too much nationalization

I think you meant to say "oh shit here we go again"

Maybe because the political compass is a terrible way of representing ideologies

It's almost like the line between fascism and communism is rather thin...

Hitler actually hated smoking and attempted to ban the practice.

@@adamvale945 Crazy, given how he snorted cocaine for his speeches and as general consumption and gave the army chocolate with meth

Never fear! A new mic has been purchased and my god is it so much better

Alright that's great news, also nice to see you responding to comments, especially so quickly.

So then… national socialism?

@@MoldycheeseJr Enjoy that red pill, son...

Nationalistic zocialism, now where have we heard this befor

@@miguelpadeiro762 Dunno, let's ask that very polite Argentinian man with the toothbrush moustashe who speaks with a German accent for some reason! Maybe he'll know!

@@miguelpadeiro762 This isn't a counter to anything you or anyone said in this thread. This is just an interesting observation I've made. Keep in mind, this also isn't me declaring socialism as either bad or good. Because it's quite beside the point I'm trying to make. This is just a technical description of socialism as I see it. If you disagree with me, that's okay. I highly doubt I'm going to convince anyone of anything. I'm not all that persuasive. That being said... Socialism... isn't a stand alone ideology. When people today talk of Socialism as an ideology they're almost always referring to Marxism. Understandable since Marxism really is just socialism taken to its most logical extreme. But what is Socialism? We can't even begin to understand and learn the lessons of the last 150 years of human history if we don't understand Socialism, Marxism, National Socialism, and Fascism. And if we don't learn from it, we will only repeat the same mistakes and tens of millions more will die as a result. But no pressure (lol). Socialism is not Marxism or visa versa. They are most certainly related, but they are not the same. Socialism predates Marxism... by a lot. When I mean "by a lot" I really do mean it. Socialistic policies date back at least to Ancient Rome, where even before the Free Grain Dole, you had the government or even just some public figures subsidizing grain prices during times of famine going back to at least the 5th century BC. Going further Diocletian basically enacted proto-serfdom in the late 3rd century in reaction to the chaos of the Third Century. I don't think anyone is going to be mistaking the Roman elites as raging Marxists any time soon. Socialism is, in short, the State ownership/control over the means of production (at least in part, if not in total). This can be translated as the government control over the economy (at least in part, if not in total). Notice how there is no real ideological connotations attached to that definition and that is by design. Now, what is Marxism? Marxism is seeing the world entirely through the lens of Class Struggle. If you see the world entirely through the lens of Class Struggle, congratulations, you're a Marxist, simply put. Now how does Socialism fit in here? Well, through a Marxist's economic world view, which is the Class ownership/control over the means of production, which perfectly describes the world before and after the implementation of Marxism (at least in the mind of a Marxist *shrugs* ). So essentially Marxism is Socialism as seen through the lens of Class Struggle. As an aside, Communism is just the end goal of Marxism. And Marx-Leninism is just Marxism as implemented by Vladimir Lenin. Now, what is National Socialism? Well, this is where things get really spicy, as there are a _lot_ of people invested in National Socialism not being Socialism because that requires acknowledging a rather massive black mark in Socialism's record in the form of universally reviled state entity run by Adolf Hitler and his cronies. And if you analyze Nazi economic policies minus the desire to not see Nazism as socialist in nature, they are clearly socialist in nature. Nazism being Socialist doesn't preclude the Conservative German Junker class from accepting the Nazis because German Conservatism is kind of weird, going back to Bismark, who implemented moderate forms of Leftist policies in order to cut Leftist arguments off at the knees (which was honestly kind of clever). So by the 1930s German Conservatives really wouldn't have had issues with policies like universal cradle to grave health care, which the Nazis actually did implement (I mean, so long as you were a member of the Nazi Party, that is; and frankly from their perspective if you weren't a member of the Nazi Party then odds on you were probably a degenerate subhuman worthy of only slavery or extermination, so you wouldn't count anyway). National Socialism is seeing the world entirely through the lens of Racial Struggle and National Socialist economic world view is the Racial ownership/control over the means of production. What is Fascism? Basically National Socialism minus the racial elements. Indeed, before WWI Mussolini was in fact a Marxist and a card carrying member of the Italian Communist Party. He left the party, not because he decided he didn't like Socialism anymore, but because he thought the Communists as not going far enough with Socialism (seriously). Also, some speculation on my part: It was probably also a branding issue. It's harder to come to power when you've branded yourself as someone who wishes to up-end the established order, which is what Communism/Marxism was and is. Also, upon coming to power, if Mussolini's Italy were a Communist Italy, then suddenly every nation on Italy's border becomes hostile overnight. Basically Fascism was a clever bit of rebranding of Marxism, mixed with Nationalist overtones. It's quite clever really. You're stepping away from an international revolutionary stance, which is freaking out the powers that be thanks to that pesky revolution in Russia and embracing a Nationalist mindset, which just further sends the message that you're not just going to spread the revolution to neighboring countries. Also, nationalism is definitely something the Powers that Be are definitely cool with. This led to the notion that Fascism was the safer alternative to Communism. Fascists weren't about to bust down the elites' doors and shoot them in the head. It was only with the German breakup of Czechoslovakia that this mindset truly fell away and Fascism's and National Socialism's true nature was finally exposed. Finally, whether it's Class or Race, it's all mostly just ideological window dressing meaning "the people" and the State is meant as the ultimate representative body of the people. It might seem strange, but every modern ideology, even the most extremely authoritarian ones, try to act with the the idea that they and they alone have a Mandate from the People to enact their ideology. Basically the Popular Mandate is the modern equivalent to Divine Right of Monarchs. Basically all legitimacy for a modern government's authority comes from a Mandate of the Masses. This is why there are countries named the _People's Republic_ of China or the _Democratic People's Republic_ of Korea. They're trying to reinforce the legitimacy of their rule, even through the most vapid of means. Ultimately however, people know deep down it's BS, but they go along with it because in most circumstances the alternative, chaos and anarchy, is worse. You just need to look to the Middle East of the last hundred or so years (or at least the last 20) to see what that alternative looks like. It's why North Korea and remain as it is, despite the horrific conditions found there. Ultimately both Divine Right and Popular Mandate are both BS in some way or other. Ultimately the most practical form of legitimacy is to have the biggest or most (or both) guns. But that kind of makes it hard to get people to enthusiastically support your rule when the only reason why you rule is because you'll shoot them if they try to change the situation. Over all, I'd say the that the best source of legitimacy, by a narrow margin, is Divine Right. At least with Divine Right all a monarch has to do is point to the biggest most ornate building in a city or village, the Church ( or Temple, Mosque, or whatever), and say, "there Peasant, there is where my right to rule over you stems from. To question my right to rule is to doubt God Himself, which is blasphemy. Now get back to the fields". It really shifted most of the burden of legitimacy off onto the Church. Though it was a double edged sword. If the Church so decided they could declare you excommunicated and suddenly you're without legitimacy (as what happened to England's King John). It only really began to fall apart when people started questioning the authority of the Church. Regardless of a horrible state that was the lives of the average person of the time, it actually led to centuries of rule with a stable socio-economic system, which is more than Popular Mandate can offer. Damn, that got a bit long, didn't it... (lol)

Nazism and Facism are two different ideologies, and yes, you are right but no one says a facist party can't take control over Germany.

Nazism is a form of fascism

The nazi party was fascist

Nazis were Fascists. Nazism is a form of fascism, with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system

@@TheStateofIsrael It is a totalitarian ideology, and so is fascism. But the terms are not interchangable. They still differ. I am against extreme ideologies, but I wanted to point that out.

Well because they are essentially the same

@@slashslash501 only essentially tho

@@jeffmates1619 there are rather small differences in systems and definitions but they can be neglected

Eu4 for example is a simulator of the world from 15th century up to the 19th century. This time period, like the time before it, was a brutal period In peacetimes, dependance on crop yields to survive the season, a famine probably sentencing you to certain death In wartimes, misery. Fields and towns burnt and looted, men conscripted in the thousands. And of course the general exploitation of peoples and lands. Slavery, colonialism, imperialism. A simulator of this time without these brutal aspects is almost a whitewash of history in game format "Peacefully settle and culture convert this native American land! The natives dont mind!" No. The natives do mind. And they will rebel and destroy the settlements depending on the ferocity of the native peoples or whether you've angered them. And of course these brutal regimes, economic systems and foreign policies are the best plays to win, because they were the best plays to win IRL

You're 80 years late