Liberal Democracy

[abucs]

I already did. It is not worth arguing.

I get that sort of response a lot from people of the Left today.

In the first thread, there were numerous people endorsing Pinochet and Franco.

Look I am not going to reads through two whole threads looking for something like you have described. If this is your evidence, please show me where you Identify your people as Catholic Conservatives and tell me what posts I should be looking at.

In the broader sense if there are some people who support decades old regimes for whatever historical context and if they did identify as
Catholic Conservatives you are still a long way from making any sense with your question :

What is the alternative to liberal democracy does these conservative Catholics envision? Do they want a military junta run by Catholics that actively tortures and murders those who promote values opposed to conservative Catholicism and the interests of economic elite?

Your question makes no sense and as I have said it dehumanises Catholic Conservatives and really betrays an incredible position without any merit.

Answer the question and use evidence.

You’ve asked me for the number of dead people under certain regimes and asked me to provide evidence. Straight answer, no I am not going to. You brought these regimes into the discussion and I have asked you why you are talking about these regimes. If I ask you to tell me how many monkeys there are in Bali and provide evidence I would expect you to ask me the same question - What are you talking about? I wouldn’t expect you to go and look up evidence for something when I haven’t answered the question on why I changed the discussion to Balinese monkeys. It is your point, or would-be point (you haven’t yet made it). Please make the point of why we are talking about those regimes.

Please note the Poland and East Germany are not run by people sympathetic to communism. The government could look in the archives to see how many people (including priests) were murdered by the Jaruzelski or Honecker.

Why am I noting this? Again I have asked you why you are talking about these regimes. I asked if your reason was to show there are terrible regimes other than Left wing dictatorships but you didn’t answer. I really don’t know what you are talking about. You have to make a point rather than bring new things up and ask the other person to provide evidence or to ask the other person to note things without making points or asking people to read through two whole threads to find cases of something you have said which doesn’t really address your original text anyway.

You have to make points. You have to actually say something.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

I get that sort of response a lot from people of the Left today.

“Abucs”, please go to this thread and explain this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14452593&postcount=87

 

[abucs]

“Abucs”, please go to this thread and explain this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14452593&postcount=87

Firstly you shouldn’t go chasing people on different threads to ask vague questions about posts made on other threads.

Secondly there is no reason to explain the words. It is simple English and standard transparent practice.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Firstly you shouldn’t go chasing people on different threads to ask vague questions about posts made on other threads.

Secondly there is no reason to explain the words. It is simple English and standard transparent practice.

Translation:
I can’t defend it, so I’ll attack the person asking the question.
Gotcha.
More logic from the First Church of Trump.

 

[abucs]

Translation:
I can’t defend it, so I’ll attack the person asking the question.
Gotcha.
More logic from the First Church of Trump.

Your post is being reported. You are on the wrong thread, making personal and incorrect assertions and describing me in a shameful way to be part of First Church of Trump which is itself an attack on religion. Your personal attack is unfounded, incoherent, and distasteful as is your continual chasing of people across different threads.

unoriginal-thoughts.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/first-church-of-trump.html

 

[Monte_RCMS]

What particular evidence do you have that liberal democracies such as the United States substantially restrict freedom of speech and thought? Any restriction of those is largely driven by social pressure.

I suppose a better alternative to liberal democracy to these people is to live in a military dictatorship run by Catholics, such as Chile, Argentina, and Spain. There you will have your “freedom of speech” and no “totalitarian restriction of thoughts” with the preservation of “traditional institutions”, Hell, thousands of people will be murdered and tortured, but you will have your “freedom of speech” and freedom from liberal democracy.

Do you have any evidence that any priest is punished in a liberal democracy for speaking out against " anything other than what the liberal-democratic orthodoxy mandates to condemn"?

It seems like that unless you are doing the persecuting and torturing, you will always feel persecuted.

What these people really want is not “freedom of speech” which is given in practice in the liberal democracies, but for the government to affirm their ideologies and stifle the political expression of those against their values.

There are no communists anymore, so we have to create new enemies.

As far as I am concerned, a liberal is someone who is open minded … i.e., widely read, open to discussion,

A democracy is about the least stable form of government.

The United States is not now and has never been a democracy.

However, the meaning of words has changed over time.

I recommend reading “None Dare Call It Treason” by John A. Stormer … about how liberalism changes to progressivism and how the political discussion in the United States has changed. And how the words have changed.

I also recommend “Fire in the Minds of Men” about the origin of radicalism in the French Revolution and how it spread around the world. James Billington is the author; he was Librarian of Congress.

As long as adherents of Marx exist, then Communism exists.

 

[abucs]

Fire in the minds of Men

 

[Latias]

I get that sort of response a lot from people of the Left today.

Look I am not going to reads through two whole threads looking for something like you have described. If this is your evidence, please show me where you Identify your people as Catholic Conservatives and tell me what posts I should be looking at.

I suppose you are unwilling to deal with any evidence that contradicts your world view. Evidence is not going to be given to you on a silver platter, but the evidence that conservative Catholics support dictatorships is in that thread. Isn’t Catholics supporting Pinochet and Franco examples of Catholics supporting right-wing dictatorships?

In the broader sense if there are some people who support decades old regimes for whatever historical context and if they did identify as
Catholic Conservatives you are still a long way from making any sense with your question :

Your question makes no sense and as I have said it dehumanises Catholic Conservatives and really betrays an incredible position without any merit.

Supporting Pinochet and Franco means that you at least support some elements of dictatorships. It also means you are willing to support the repression that went on in those regimes. If they do not support that repression, why not just support a liberal democracy?

The people supporting these dictatorships really do not cherish civil liberties (because they support repression and persecution of political opponents, often brutally). As I said, they are largely interested in attaining special rights for themselves while regarding another group of people as second-class citizens at best.

Those people are very concerned about the slightest perceived infringement of their supposed rights, but they are actually indifferent to egregious human rights violations.

You’ve asked me for the number of dead people under certain regimes and asked me to provide evidence. Straight answer, no I am not going to. You brought these regimes into the discussion and I have asked you why you are talking about these regimes. If I ask you to tell me how many monkeys there are in Bali and provide evidence I would expect you to ask me the same question - What are you talking about? I wouldn’t expect you to go and look up evidence for something when I haven’t answered the question on why I changed the discussion to Balinese monkeys. It is your point, or would-be point (you haven’t yet made it). Please make the point of why we are talking about those regimes.

How is my point irrelevant? You could answer the question by either guessing, say give high-estimates for Poland and East Germany (although I want these estimates to be backed up by some evidence) and low estimates for El Salvador, Argentina, and Chile. Again, evidence is the most important thing.

Why am I noting this? Again I have asked you why you are talking about these regimes. I asked if your reason was to show there are terrible regimes other than Left wing dictatorships but you didn’t answer. I really don’t know what you are talking about. You have to make a point rather than bring new things up and ask the other person to provide evidence or to ask the other person to note things without making points or asking people to read through two whole threads to find cases of something you have said which doesn’t really address your original text anyway.

You have to make points. You have to actually say something.

I thought anyone would realize that I was trying to illustrate that there are worse forms of government than some left-wing authoritarian states.

No, I don’t have to articulate my intentions. A prosecutor cross-examining a witness does not have to reveal the purpose of her questions, although my intentions should be quite obvious.

I am actually interested in the evidence and assessing those regimes.

A democracy is about the least stable form of government.

The United States is not now and has never been a democracy.

The US has been described as a liberal democracy, most often with a positive connotation. (i.e. “liberal democracy” is not used to denigrate the US). For the purposes of this discussion, the US is a liberal democracy.

I recommend reading “None Dare Call It Treason” by John A. Stormer … about how liberalism changes to progressivism and how the political discussion in the United States has changed. And how the words have changed.

I also recommend “Fire in the Minds of Men” about the origin of radicalism in the French Revolution and how it spread around the world. James Billington is the author; he was Librarian of Congress.

Again, regardless of what you want to call the US:

Do you have any evidence that any priest [or anyone else] is punished in a liberal democracy for speaking out against " anything other than what the liberal-democratic orthodoxy mandates to condemn"?

 

[abucs]

I suppose you are unwilling to deal with any evidence that contradicts your world view.

You would be wrong but that tells me where your mind is in regards to discussion.

Evidence is not going to be given to you on a silver platter,

if by silver platter you mean that when showing evidence you have to actually say where it is and explain your reasoning then you do have to actually.

but the evidence that conservative Catholics support dictatorships is in that thread. Isn’t Catholics supporting Pinochet and Franco examples of Catholics supporting right-wing dictatorships?

well if they are conservative Catholics and if Pinochet and Franco are examples of right-wing dictatorships (whatever that is) then yes, but even if this was all true (and yes you actually do have to point it out if you want to proceed from a position of agreement) then if this is true you have 1 or 2 people on a blog who, I am guessing said some positive things about these regimes. As I mentioned before that is such along way from supposing what you said in your quote. A long, long way. If I find 2 self identified short people who support Pinochet does that mean it is the default position of short people to support Pinochet. There is no logic attached to that way of thinking.

Supporting Pinochet and Franco means that you at least support some elements of dictatorships. It also means you are willing to support the repression that went on in those regimes. If they do not support that repression, why not just support a liberal democracy?

The people supporting these dictatorships really do not cherish civil liberties (because they support repression and persecution of political opponents, often brutally). As I said, they are largely interested in attaining special rights for themselves while regarding another group of people as second-class citizens at best.

Those people are very concerned about the slightest perceived infringement of their supposed rights, but they are actually indifferent to egregious human rights violations.

Who? Two bloggers on a five year old blog think this? ok as I said I’m not going to read the whole two threads to get to the point where they have said this. For the sake of the argument i’ll accept that 1,2 or even 3 bloggers all agreed on this 5 year old blog, word for word on what you just said. So what? This means Catholic Conservatives think this? We’re back to the idea that all short people support Pinochet. That’s not logical.

How is my point irrelevant? You could answer the question by either guessing, say give high-estimates for Poland and East Germany (although I want these estimates to be backed up by some evidence) and low estimates for El Salvador, Argentina, and Chile. Again, evidence is the most important thing.

I thought anyone would realize that I was trying to illustrate that there are worse forms of government than some left-wing authoritarian states.

No, I don’t have to articulate my intentions. A prosecutor cross-examining a witness does not have to reveal the purpose of her questions, although my intentions should be quite obvious.

I am actually interested in the evidence and assessing those regimes.

Well counsellor, if you had just asked the witness (I guess that’s me) in the first place whether there are bad regimes other than Left wing dictatorships then I would have answered yes and you wouldn’t have wasted the courts time. There is no need to play 20/20 questions and be clandestine in why you are asking those questions. Again, that is not logical or necessary.

 

[Latias]

if by silver platter you mean that when showing evidence you have to actually say where it is and explain your reasoning then you do have to actually.

The threads are not heavy reading. And it is not hard to find discern pro-Pinochet sentiment in the posts.

Who? Two bloggers on a five year old blog think this? ok as I said I’m not going to read the whole two threads to get to the point where they have said this. For the sake of the argument i’ll accept that 1,2 or even 3 bloggers all agreed on this 5 year old blog, word for word on what you just said. So what? This means Catholic Conservatives think this? We’re back to the idea that all short people support Pinochet. That’s not logical.

That is really puerile. There were many more people than two or three in the first thread.

Obviously not all short people support Pinochet or there is any relationship between height and support the Chilean junta. It is dumb counterargument.

It is really obtuse to dismiss the notion of a right-wing dictatorship.

You said Hitler was a leftist. I would challenge you to find any leftist who supports Hitler. There are plenty of people on Stormfront who support Hitler, but if you call them a leftist or have leftist values, they will become apoplectic, since they hate the left.

There is considerably less evidence that leftists support Hitler than the claim that many conservative Catholics support Pinochet. Granted if Hitler was a leftist, some leftists would at least embrace him since Hitler was sympathetic to their ideals, but I doubt you could find any.

 

[abucs]

well I don’t think you are making much sense but anyway, ok, so you do want to talk about Hitler then.

ok, great. Many people like yourself make the mistake of saying that since people who identity with Hitler in todays world are more likely to vote conservative then Hitler must not of been on the left.

On face value, very superficially that makes some sense.

But there is an important thing to consider and that is policies.

Are there Nazi policies of todays conservatives that attracts self identified Nazis today?

No there are not. The reason self identified Nazis are more likely to vote for conservatives today is because the Progressive Left have taken over the left side of politics and they are completely mad. They are more likely to support the Conservative side today because of race. But of course race is only one part of Hitler’s National Socialists but we’ll get to that later.

So lets look at the Republicans and Democrats of the United States as an example of what has gone on.

It is an easily identifiable fact that Republicans supported the abolition of slavery and believed each man should be treated the same before the law. They still believe this. They have not changed.

On the other hand the Southern Democrats were associated heavily with the Ku Klux Klan and were instrumental in the Jim Crow segregation laws. That is the Democrat Party played identity politics where the white person was on top of the pile.

Unlike the Republican Party the Democrats have changed quite a bit regarding the one issue I have chosen to discuss first and that is race. The Democrats are still the Party of identity politics but whereas the white man was on top of the pile in decades past, now the Democrats put them on the bottom of the pile. Affirmative action means other races are preferred in many instances and more than likely paid for by white places and wealth. This is still of course racist but the order of race has changed. Then there is the talk of white privilege, the denigration of traditional western culture, the blaming of ills on western society, supporting and promoting the illogical claims of black lives matter or open borders and encouraging illegal immigration etc etc.

So the Democrats have embraced identity politics putting the whites at the bottom whereas as previously they put them first.

The republicans (right) still think everyone should be treated the same. No special preference, no affirmative action, only justified redistribution of wealth, not as a tax on ‘privilege’, no identity politics based on race such as black lives matter etc.

So if you are one of the very few people who self identify as a Nazi where before you had the choice of a party that catered to your race and one that wanted to treat everyone the same; now your choice is one that wants to prefer other races and one that wants to treat everyone the same.

So of course if you are a self identified Nazi (based on race) you are not going to choose your previous party because they have now switched the target of their race identity politics.

So that is race and Progressives across the western world have taken this anti-western Marxist view of the world which is against western culture.

Of course if we go back to the National Socialists of Adolph Hitler we have to consider so many other political positions.

So Hitler played identity politics claiming the Germans were the victims of international oppression (just like the French Revolutionaries claimed victim status where the term 'Leftist derives). The Jewish people were portrayed as the rich selfish people (the 1% of todays socialists) whose wealth was being taken unjustly off the German worker and needed to be taken back to satisfy the social justice of equality. Hitler spoke in terms of social justice and equality. He and his ministers were also critical of capitalism and the exploiting of the worker (Like the French Revolutionaries) the National Socialists were anti monarchy (as with the French Revolutionaries) the National Socialists were in favour of violent revolution and the killing of political opponents (as were the French Revolutionaries) the National Socialists spoke of the removal of Christianity and the taking over of morality by the state (as did the French Revolutionaries) the National Socialists spoke of a more fairer and equitable distribution of wealth (as did the French Revolutionaries) the National Socialists claimed to be Progressives based on reason (as did the French Revolutionaries) the National Socialists went completely insane (as did the French Revolutionaries) etc etc

The National Socialists had the most environment friendly policies of the world. Hitler was a vegetarian and spoke much with his ministers in converting Germany to vegetarianism (good luck with that) the National Socialists called themselves socialists, they closed down Christian schools and confiscated Church property, they introduced a strict gun policy, supported huge welfare programs and employment including health care, supported and in fact forced euthanasia through that medical system as well as abortion for non Aryan people,

They were left wing.

Politics changes as I have spoken about with the evolving of the Progressives from the Marxists. They don’t support forced killing of Jews, Gypsies etc today but then of course nobody else does either. But they still share much of the National Socialist platform, rhetoric and policies.

 

[LexDivina]

well I don’t think you are making much sense but anyway, ok, so you do want to talk about Hitler then.

ok, great. Many people like yourself make the mistake of saying that since people who identity with Hitler in todays world are more likely to vote conservative then Hitler must not of been on the left.

On face value, very superficially that makes some sense.

National Socialist’s were not actual leftist Socialist’s. They were Fascist.
The Nazi’s have a complex political background. By every right their social politics were anti-democratic, radically xenophobic, reactionary and statist. As far as economic politics things are more complicated. The Nazis were originally composed of competing sects. Hitler came from a right-wing sect composed mostly of provincial Bavarians, Goebbels on the other hand came from the pamphleteering center-left Berlin sect, for instance that had leanings toward radical workers rights, while still having a racist core. This group was destroyed (and betrayed by Goebbels during the buildup to the beerhall pusch).

Just remember that our superficial use of political categories in the media does not meaningfully represent the continuum of politics during this era. This was the mass European reaction to the demise of feudalism. Where people held onto the figure of the great leader, normally in response to deep economic malaise, there was a tendency toward fascism. But simultaneously there was the battle for the support of the new industrial working class. They would be battled for, in most of Europe, between fascists and communists (also note that groups that are often homogenized in modern discourse represented distinct political positions at the time–the socialist congress had competing egalitarian socialists (Proudhon), anarchists (bakunin, Marx and various forms of communism (Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemborg) as well as various other leftists.

In truth despite all the essentially meaningless propaganda about the miniscule Jewish population and their affect on the German economy (rather than the failures of Prussian and German military campaigns, backwoods resistance to modernization, and a low rent monarchy) the real problem seen with the Jews was their vocal position among the communist left.

Anyway, while some bad recent historiography has tried to revise reality, Hitler was in no way left. He took for the state and installed a massive military and bureaucratic armature, but he did not redistribute wealth or destroy class systems. He completed one of the most effective campaigns of rapid modernization, but only for the ends of the state (which he saw as selfsame with the German people). Also, realize you cannot put too much on a name alone. The former East Germany was decidedly socialist but was called the DDR or Deutsche Demokratische Republik (German) or German Democratic Republic (English). North Korea, which is about as far from being democratic as you can get, is properly called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

 

[abucs]

I am going to bed now so I will reply tomorrow. I will just say that the term fascist comes from the Italian Fascisto Party. Mussolini like Hitler was a leftist socialist but had the idea that it was better to incorporate all classes into his socialist program rather than have them fight each other. Hitler went the same way and thus split with the Russian model of socialism. The Russians then called Hitler’s Party ‘fascist’ as a derogatory term of reference to Mussolini’s version of socialism.

So yes the National Socialists were fascists, Socialist fascists.

 

[Latias]

…]

I asked for left-wing people supporting Hitler. I asked for specific, concrete examples. I did not ask for some (flawed) theoretical analysis explaining why you couldn’t name one today.

Look, social democrats opposed Hitler, Marxists opposed Hitler. That is evidence enough that the radical left doesn’t like Hitler.

According to you, there is no point in saying that Hitler was a leftist or rightist. You explain the current lack of leftist admirers of Hitler due to the left being radical egalitarians on race. So the people supporting Hitler, according to you, were not gravitated towards him by his right or left-wing stance, but due to his position on race.

…

The claim that right-wing Catholics (at least on the far-right who could be described as reactionaries and anti-communists) support Pinochet makes much more sense than the notion that anyone on the left supports Hitler.

 

[LexDivina]

I am going to bed now so I will reply tomorrow. I will just say that the term fascist comes from the Italian Fascisto Party. Mussolini like Hitler was a leftist socialist but had the idea that it was better to incorporate all classes into his socialist program rather than have them fight each other. Hitler went the same way and thus split with the Russian model of socialism. The Russians then called Hitler’s Party ‘fascist’ as a derogatory term of reference to Mussolini’s version of socialism.

So yes the National Socialists were fascists, Socialist fascists.

Hitler nearly had to fight a civil war against the German communist party. He did not believe in, nor did he promote collective ownership of capital (the core of socialist thought). Communist dissidents were among the first to be persecuted in concentration camps (unsurprisingly since they were the most likely to violently resist the nazi’s entering government and then seizing control).
Hitler was not a socialist nor did his party promote socialist policy. He was a nationalist who desired to create a unified German polity not torn by the divisions inherent to liberal democracy.

 

[abucs]

I asked for left-wing people supporting Hitler. I asked for specific, concrete examples. I did not ask for some (flawed) theoretical analysis explaining why you couldn’t name one today.

Yes you did ask me that but the question is whether Hitler was a socialist in the left sense of politics not whether people who self identify as socialist Left today also self identify as supporting Hitler. That is a different question and my flawless post D) showed your mistake of mixing politics of today and the best part of 100 years ago.

Let me give you another example. If I went travelling through England or Holland today you would be very hard pressed to find English or Dutch who wanted to buy slaves and support slavery. It would not be logical to conclude that the people who bought slaves and supported slavery were not English or Dutch. They were. Appealing to the fact that self identified English and Dutch today don’t support slavery cannot be an argument that people who did support slavery in the past were not English of Dutch. It is a logical fallacy. Most English and Dutch did not support slavery 400 years ago just like most socialists did not support Hitler. The fact that we have trouble finding Dutch or English people today supporting slavery is the same as having trouble finding socialists who today support Hitler. It does not dictate what happened in the past. For that you have to examine the evidence of the past.

Your thinking is not correct in this matter and that is why your question does not relate properly to the question we are discussing. You can’t substitute one question for another assuming the flawed logic that it is the same.

I

Look, social democrats opposed Hitler, Marxists opposed Hitler. That is evidence enough that the radical left doesn’t like Hitler.

The radical left of today doesn’t support Hitler in the same way the Dutch of today don’t support slavery.

Regarding ‘some’ radical lefts opposing Hitler in the 1920’s, it is evidence that those socialists who opposed Hitler’s socialism were against National Socialism.

A further example of the flawed logic you are trying to use : Union forces opposing Confederate forces in the American civil war does not preclude both of them being American.

According to you, there is no point in saying that Hitler was a leftist or rightist. You explain the current lack of leftist admirers of Hitler due to the left being radical egalitarians on race. So the people supporting Hitler, according to you, were not gravitated towards him by his right or left-wing stance, but due to his position on race.

This doesn’t make any sense. First of all I am saying Hitler was a leftist so your first opening sentence is incorrect.

The claim that right-wing Catholics (at least on the far-right who could be described as reactionaries and anti-communists) support Pinochet makes much more sense than the notion that anyone on the left supports Hitler.

Again you are trying to substitute the question. Self identified radical socialists of today not identifying with the person of Hitler does not mean Hitler was not a self identified radical socialist. I have listed many of Hitler’s policies and actions and attitudes in my post that come directly from the socialist mindset and which the bulk of socialists today would support. Socialists today not identifying with the person of Hitler or his brand of National Socialism is not proving that Hitler was not a socialist.

The National Socialists called themselves socialists, they defended socialism, they had socialist policies and they acted in many regards as a typically socialist regime. Their differentiation is that they were National Socialists like Mussolini’s Fascisto Party. They mixed ideas of race with their underlying ideology of socialism.

 

[abucs]

Hitler nearly had to fight a civil war against the German communist party. He did not believe in, nor did he promote collective ownership of capital (the core of socialist thought). Communist dissidents were among the first to be persecuted in concentration camps (unsurprisingly since they were the most likely to violently resist the nazi’s entering government and then seizing control).
Hitler was not a socialist nor did his party promote socialist policy. He was a nationalist who desired to create a unified German polity not torn by the divisions inherent to liberal democracy.

Hello LexDivina, yes when the split within German socialism was apparent there was virtually a civil war to decide what German Socialism looked like. The National Socialists won that fight. Most socialists today side with the losers of that fight, but it doesn’t mean the other side weren’t socialists.

I’ve given the above example of two American sides fighting a civil war. There are lots of examples. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation fighting pitched battles with Fataw in the West Bank and Gaza does not mean that one of them aren’t Palestinian nationalists.

If you study Hitler and the National Socialists early history they were trying to win over all types of socialists including the ones supporting the Russian model. If you look at the last part of this video talking about Marx, Socialism and Hitler then you can see the Hitler Socialist Party basing their posters and banners after the Russian socialists, in colour, emblems, message and layout. I think personally the quoting of Marx is too selective but my reason for including the video is to see how closely the early Nazi party followed the Russian socialists with its use of propaganda.

youtube.com/watch?v=tyRpG8cLwuM

Hitler was not a socialist nor did his party promote socialist policy.

Hitler was a socialist and his party did promote socialist policy including hugely going into debt to fund lavish welfare programs and creating full employment.

It also included nationalisation of the health system, the education system and the heavily regulation of industry.

Any company that did not follow National Socialist policy was nationalised. If you like we can talk about the National Socialist controls of business.

He was a nationalist who desired to create a unified German polity not torn by the divisions inherent to liberal democracy.

No argument there.

For others who want to know more about Karl Marx the person, this link may be worthwhile.

youtube.com/watch?v=yA2lCBJu2Gg

 

[abucs]

Sorry the video showing the similarity of socialist propaganda at the end is the one below :

youtube.com/watch?v=m-1BWQWvUkg

The previous video was posted by some other people and they had cut the similarities of the banners and propaganda from their upload.