https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/status/2044854007257354327?s=46
If you're struggling with ED as you get older this video will help perk that pecker right up. Wake up and choose violence. Have yourself a day Mr. Thomas. Cheers. @bradstevens you have a homework assignment.
Thomas needs to look up the word fascist and how it is in interwined with conservatives
That wacko spreading hateful rhetoric shouldn't be on the supreme court.
@hurryinghoosiers 16 minute video and you responded within 9 minutes. What the hell is the matter with you?
“A spirit of ‘cynicism, rejection, hostility and animus’ toward America -- by Americans -- has taken hold” . . .
True. A product of our “warts and all” approach to teaching history with a dose of Howard Zinn tossed in. It really makes no difference how relevant or impactful negative history is, if it’s negative, it must be taught in the interest of “truth.”
https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/status/2044854007257354327?s=46
If you're struggling with ED as you get older this video will help perk that pecker right up. Wake up and choose violence. Have yourself a day Mr. Thomas. Cheers. @bradstevens you have a homework assignment.
I saw this earlier. Two of the four (Stalin and Mao) were totalitarian communists, while the other two (Hitler and Mussolini) were populists who built their regimes on populism and grievances to lead into fascism. If you use a typical definition of progressivism which is "aimed at improving society through government action, focusing on progress, equality, and addressing injustices", I don't know how any of the four would be considered progressives. You might make an argument that Trotsky was a progressive kind of guy as it relates to the treatment of Jews (he was Jewish), but not Stalin, and Trotsky was persona non grata the day Lenin died. I would hardly call forced modernization and depressed humanistic values in both Mao and Stalin's regimes as progressive.
Mussolini was a socialist until right before WWI, but was expelled. He was the founder of the Italian National Fascist Party which immediately targeted progressive institutions with violence (he wrote a book the doctrine of fascism in the early 30s). He was an absolute populist and master of propaganda. He built a bunch of buildings, but that hardly engenders a label of progressivism.
Hitler was a far-right totalitarian who blended nationalism, populism, antisemitism and eugenics. He did create limited social benefits and economic programs, but the economy of Germany was dreadful, as it was almost immediately geared for war production beginning in 1933. From 1933 until 1939, wages of 85% of the German population fell by 11%. Only the annexation of Austria improved those numbers.
Thomas is likely right on the issue of Natural Rights if we use the Lockean definition of "life, liberty, and estate", as fundamental inalienable rights inherent to all individuals, regardless of government or culture.
My point is that Thomas has connected too many dots. It is clear why he wants to connect those dots--he's serving a political master here.
Shoving carrramrod into a locker since 2024.
How is fascism intertwined with conservatives?
Because they overlap.
Acting like liberals and Hitler go together is just dumb and show how much he is a partisan hack trying to stoke hateful political rhetoric. And to think that asshole is a justice.
@hurryinghoosiers 16 minute video and you responded within 9 minutes. What the hell is the matter with you?
Some people are capable of reading the overview that was included
Do you have trouble reading? I know maga hates education but thought you could read
https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/status/2044854007257354327?s=46
If you're struggling with ED as you get older this video will help perk that pecker right up. Wake up and choose violence. Have yourself a day Mr. Thomas. Cheers. @bradstevens you have a homework assignment.
I saw this earlier. Two of the four (Stalin and Mao) were totalitarian communists, while the other two (Hitler and Mussolini) were populists who built their regimes on populism and grievances to lead into fascism. If you use a typical definition of progressivism which is "aimed at improving society through government action, focusing on progress, equality, and addressing injustices", I don't know how any of the four would be considered progressives. You might make an argument that Trotsky was a progressive kind of guy as it relates to the treatment of Jews (he was Jewish), but not Stalin, and Trotsky was persona non grata the day Lenin died. I would hardly call forced modernization and depressed humanistic values in both Mao and Stalin's regimes as progressive.
Mussolini was a socialist until right before WWI, but was expelled. He was the founder of the Italian National Fascist Party which immediately targeted progressive institutions with violence (he wrote a book the doctrine of fascism in the early 30s). He was an absolute populist and master of propaganda. He built a bunch of buildings, but that hardly engenders a label of progressivism.
Hitler was a far-right totalitarian who blended nationalism, populism, antisemitism and eugenics. He did create limited social benefits and economic programs, but the economy of Germany was dreadful, as it was almost immediately geared for war production beginning in 1933. From 1933 until 1939, wages of 85% of the German population fell by 11%. Only the annexation of Austria improved those numbers.
Thomas is likely right on the issue of Natural Rights if we use the Lockean definition of "life, liberty, and estate", as fundamental inalienable rights inherent to all individuals, regardless of government or culture.
My point is that Thomas has connected too many dots. It is clear why he wants to connect those dots--he's serving a political master here.
I get your point but there are no far right dictators. That's a fallacy. Far right is libertarianism, decentralization, and no government. Hitler was on the far left.
https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/status/2044854007257354327?s=46
If you're struggling with ED as you get older this video will help perk that pecker right up. Wake up and choose violence. Have yourself a day Mr. Thomas. Cheers. @bradstevens you have a homework assignment.
I saw this earlier. Two of the four (Stalin and Mao) were totalitarian communists, while the other two (Hitler and Mussolini) were populists who built their regimes on populism and grievances to lead into fascism. If you use a typical definition of progressivism which is "aimed at improving society through government action, focusing on progress, equality, and addressing injustices", I don't know how any of the four would be considered progressives. You might make an argument that Trotsky was a progressive kind of guy as it relates to the treatment of Jews (he was Jewish), but not Stalin, and Trotsky was persona non grata the day Lenin died. I would hardly call forced modernization and depressed humanistic values in both Mao and Stalin's regimes as progressive.
Mussolini was a socialist until right before WWI, but was expelled. He was the founder of the Italian National Fascist Party which immediately targeted progressive institutions with violence (he wrote a book the doctrine of fascism in the early 30s). He was an absolute populist and master of propaganda. He built a bunch of buildings, but that hardly engenders a label of progressivism.
Hitler was a far-right totalitarian who blended nationalism, populism, antisemitism and eugenics. He did create limited social benefits and economic programs, but the economy of Germany was dreadful, as it was almost immediately geared for war production beginning in 1933. From 1933 until 1939, wages of 85% of the German population fell by 11%. Only the annexation of Austria improved those numbers.
Thomas is likely right on the issue of Natural Rights if we use the Lockean definition of "life, liberty, and estate", as fundamental inalienable rights inherent to all individuals, regardless of government or culture.
My point is that Thomas has connected too many dots. It is clear why he wants to connect those dots--he's serving a political master here.
I get your point but there are no far right dictators. That's a fallacy. Far right is libertarianism, decentralization, and no government. Hitler was on the far left.
That isn't right. Hitler wasn't on the left in any respects. He had a hatred for all things left. If you are referring to the official name of the Nazi Party "the National Socialist German Worker's Part, that was nothing but propaganda to attract the working class and those disillusioned with the political parties existing after WWI. It was a clear populist movement and Goebbels and other higher ups wrote about it being a sham on the population. In the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler purged every element of socialism from the party. By the end of 1934, the Nazis ignored the working class and focused on winning support from the wealthy industrialists and big business--all of whom were obviously anti-socialist and anti-communist. I don't know anyone except David Irving who would say otherwise.
There are tons of examples of far right dictators. Mussolini another, Franco, Pinochet, Salazar, even Chiang Kai-shek.
Shoving carrramrod into a locker since 2024.
https://twitter.com/kanekoathegreat/status/2044854007257354327?s=46
If you're struggling with ED as you get older this video will help perk that pecker right up. Wake up and choose violence. Have yourself a day Mr. Thomas. Cheers. @bradstevens you have a homework assignment.
I saw this earlier. Two of the four (Stalin and Mao) were totalitarian communists, while the other two (Hitler and Mussolini) were populists who built their regimes on populism and grievances to lead into fascism. If you use a typical definition of progressivism which is "aimed at improving society through government action, focusing on progress, equality, and addressing injustices", I don't know how any of the four would be considered progressives. You might make an argument that Trotsky was a progressive kind of guy as it relates to the treatment of Jews (he was Jewish), but not Stalin, and Trotsky was persona non grata the day Lenin died. I would hardly call forced modernization and depressed humanistic values in both Mao and Stalin's regimes as progressive.
Mussolini was a socialist until right before WWI, but was expelled. He was the founder of the Italian National Fascist Party which immediately targeted progressive institutions with violence (he wrote a book the doctrine of fascism in the early 30s). He was an absolute populist and master of propaganda. He built a bunch of buildings, but that hardly engenders a label of progressivism.
Hitler was a far-right totalitarian who blended nationalism, populism, antisemitism and eugenics. He did create limited social benefits and economic programs, but the economy of Germany was dreadful, as it was almost immediately geared for war production beginning in 1933. From 1933 until 1939, wages of 85% of the German population fell by 11%. Only the annexation of Austria improved those numbers.
Thomas is likely right on the issue of Natural Rights if we use the Lockean definition of "life, liberty, and estate", as fundamental inalienable rights inherent to all individuals, regardless of government or culture.
My point is that Thomas has connected too many dots. It is clear why he wants to connect those dots--he's serving a political master here.
I get your point but there are no far right dictators. That's a fallacy. Far right is libertarianism, decentralization, and no government. Hitler was on the far left.
That isn't right. Hitler wasn't on the left in any respects. He had a hatred for all things left. If you are referring to the official name of the Nazi Party "the National Socialist German Worker's Part, that was nothing but propaganda to attract the working class and those disillusioned with the political parties existing after WWI. It was a clear populist movement and Goebbels and other higher ups wrote about it being a sham on the population. In the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler purged every element of socialism from the party. By the end of 1934, the Nazis ignored the working class and focused on winning support from the wealthy industrialists and big business--all of whom were obviously anti-socialist and anti-communist. I don't know anyone except David Irving who would say otherwise.
There are tons of examples of far right dictators. Mussolini another, Franco, Pinochet, Salazar, even Chiang Kai-shek.
And Putin.
I get your point but there are no far right dictators.
Effing hilarious.
It has to take work to be so oblivious. But when you have people like Thomas spewing that crap, hard to blame people for believing it.