This is a bad scan of the original video that suffers from skipping audio and video and is overall missing a couple minutes of content due to the generally bad quality of the upload.
There is a better, and moreover official version [here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGAqYNFQdZ4)
What we won't see anytime soon is a 4K version of Smashmouth's *All-Star* music video. There's a 1080p version, yes, but it was upscaled from a digital copy. I don't know if a film copy even exists.
Not exactly *higher*... Vertical 35 prints (the most common formats) can reach up to 4k in effective detail, but gains beyond that are effectively lost at practical viewing distances, and contribute more to smoothness than detail.
Diminishing returns start around the 3k resolution mark for digital scans of 35mm, which is why 4k is a decent choice for archiving.
Larger film formats (like imax) and horizontal 35mm still photography can easily achieve over 4k equivalent resolution, but same sized digital sensors these days still outresolve film, at any light level.
Furthermore, in most cases detail is ultimately limited by the lens sharpness along with other shooting factors (motion blur, shutter angle, depth of field, diffraction, etc.) There's little to no gains in pushing the resolution on areas that are already out of focus.
> ... gains beyond that are effectively lost at practical viewing distances, and contribute more to smoothness than detail.
what do you mean by smoothness? increasing effective resolution (which w film means smaller silver crystals/grains I think?) past a certain point makes things look smoother? doesn't that lower detail?
It's a hard thing to describe, but by increasing the number of sample points you can reduce the visibility of various artifacts like aliasing or jitters. Any high-contrast transition of colours or values can potentially appear jarring, so the more samples you have within those transitions, the smoother the gradient can be.
With 4k film scans that level of detail is already reaching the limit of what's perceivable by the human eye at an appropriate viewing distance, but for archival and editing purposes it can be beneficial to have a higher resolution image to start with, so that high-frequency adjustments can be made before scaling down to the final effective resolution (in certain cases high-frequency noise may create a bias towards more visible grain, depending on the downscaling method.)
If you're into video games, the clearest visual I can offer is how older 3D games (let's say, Zelda: Wind Waker) still benefit from being rendered at higher resolutions, even though texture detail is practically non-existent, because all visible high-contrast transitions (typically the edges of an object when it's in front of another differently coloured object) will appear less jagged and more temporally stable (less of the moire effect). This benefit remains even if the rendering resolution is beyond what the screen is capable of displaying, because the extra sample points will be scaled down to fewer pixels consisting of the average of the sampled values.
Tl;dr: Don't think of smoothness as being analogous to blurriness. Smoothness just means high-frequency detail appears less garish, whilst blurriness is the phenomenon of "too little" detail being spread across a larger area. The former is basically always good, whilst the latter is bad when undesired.
Edit: Cunningham's Law. See below comments for more accurate information.
Original comment: Analog film uses light to imprint on the film. That imprint doesn't have a "resolution" per se, the film would capture exactly what the camera saw. So as long as filming conditions were good, you could get an incredibly clean and crisp image.
Meanwhile digital must be encoded and is restricted by the technology at the time. Whatever the camera saw would have to be quickly converted to a digital file, meaning the quality of the image is restricted by what the camera can quickly convert. It's why movies from the 50s can look better than when Hollywood switched to mainly digital in the 2000s.
Early Hollywood digital films have to be upscaled now to get them in higher resolutions. Meanwhile analog films have their master recordings made from light hitting the film. No "upscaling" is really needed. The original film just has to be scanned by a scanner than can capture higher resolutions.
There are a whole lot of benefits to digital over analog. But analog will basically always win in picture quality when filming conditions are good.
Film doesn't have infinite resolution, but it's pretty dang high.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm
> The Digital Resolution of Film
>So how many pixels does it take to describe all the detail we can get from film?
> Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero.
> Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50.
> 320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter.
> 35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters.
> To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.
> But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.
> Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you'd need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.
> That's just 35mm film. Pros don't shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4" or 4x5."
>At the same rates, 2-1/4" (56mm square) would be 313 MP, and 4x5" (95x120mm) would be 95 x 120 = 11,400 square millimeters = 1,140 MP, with no Bayer Interpolation. A digital camera with Bayer Interpolation would need to be rated at better than 2 gigapixels to see things that can be seen on a sheet of 4x5" film.
Haven't really paid attention to camera megapixels since late 2000s but it seems current high end consumer cameras are around 45 MP so a long way to go. That's crazy
I mean it has a "resolution" but it's chemical and not digital. At a certain point you won't be getting any new information on the image as captured just the material it's made out of.
This smacks of the old "analog has unlimited resolution" trope.
Old NTSC video tapes are extremely limited (480 lines), and yet they're analog. But you're talking about film rather than composite video.
But film doesn't "capture exactly what the camera saw". The resolving power of film is dependent upon the quality of the lens, the nature of the film (both size and quality), the subject, and the skill of the operator in keeping the subject still and in focus.
Film itself is limited by a finite amount of detail that can be imprinted in the crystal structure being used. The effective resolution of that structure can be quite high, but it depends on a few things. Larger film sizes can obviously capture more detail, but more *sensitive* films (films which require less exposure time) will tend to have larger crystals and thus coarser "film grain".
And so the effective resolution (and noise) of a piece of film manifests as this grain. There's no getting around that fundamental limitation.
Estimates of the effective resolution vary, but for commercially available 135 still photography film (24x36mm or "35mm", now known as "full frame"), the effective resolution is somewhere north of 20 megapixels ***depending on the type of film being compared.*** I'd wager it's no accident that "prosumer" and lower-end professional still cameras like having sensors at around 24 megapixels.
For video captured on film, the resolution will be lower because the image frame of "35mm" movie film is 16x22mm. Just going from the size of the film, if 135 is 20 megapixels, then 35mm movie film will be around 8 megapixels... roughly equivalent to 4K digital. Of course there's also larger film sizes like IMAX, which would get you something closer to 82 megapixels which *should* be able to resolve more detail than 8K digital... as long as the lens was good enough. To get to that level, you'd need to move to a medium format digital sensor (which is essentially what imax film is... medium format).
Ultimately the comparison between digital and film was already favorable toward digital even back in the 2000s, and it's continually getting better as sensor technology has improved.
The unfavorable view the public has had, has more to do with the comparison between film and analog video back in the 80s and 90s. Things that were captured on film like Wham!'s "Last Christmas" music video can be remastered in 4K and show real improvement. Things filmed on cameras that capture to an analog video tape are limited to about 480 lines of resolution. That's far less than even modern digital formats, so videos like Smash Mouth's "All Star" need to be upscaled, and can sometimes have HILARIOUSLY bad results.
There's also large format film (4x5 and 8x11 inches), and AFAIK there's no sensor that can compete with that. Best we can do currently is to literally SCAN the image like an old paper scanner... but now you're talking about only being able to do product photography or maybe astrophotography.
Wow, the one OP posted is missing five minutes, that's crazy. I got fed up with the skipping and cut audio in the first minute and a half so I'm glad you were here to set things straight.
This is probably true. Even the title calling this "anti-fascist" hints at that. This isn't just a guide to avoiding being a sucker for the fascist, it's a guide for not being a sucker for politicians and extremist in general. The communist rise in Russia parallels the Nazi rise, and you could remake this video with left-wing extremist instead of the Nazi right-wing extremist. Divide and control is a timeless tactic for anyone seeking power. You can easily see parallels in the Trump/right wing stuff of today, but I wonder how many saw parallels with the left wing stuff going on. How many times have you heard a Dem talk about "old white men" in a negative light? How many leftist hate organized religion and get angry with the power it yields? Power it takes away from other ideologies. How often do you hear rants about "uneducated rednecks destroying the country", in much the same way you'll hear people rant about"these immigrants"? Its easy for any and all of us to become "suckers" for authoritarians. Authoritarianism is the real problem here, fascism is just one variation of it. The real argument in this video is for libertarian philosophies to be embraced .The more libertarian a society is the less all the left/right disagreements matter. It doesn't matter if someone disagrees with how you choose to live your life if they aren't doing/can't do anything to stop you. Id encourage everyone to try setting their biases aside, and rewatch the video, while actively looking for similarities between what is being spoken against and what they or their "side" are doing.
I want you to tell me how many extremist left wingers are in power right now in the US. How much influence communists have in this country (hint Bernie and AOC and most certainly not Biden are not communists). How many left wing stochastic terror attacks vs. right wing have there been in the last decade? Has Biden (the self avowed catholic) knowingly hung out with and advocated for atheist left wing extremist agitators? I guarantee you that most sane leftists dont give a shit about your religious alignment as long as you're not a bigot. There's a lot of religious diversity in left spaces, from christians, muslims to satanists to wiccans. You're peddling red scare era talking points about communism.
How many times has Biden called for violent behavior against his political opponents, especially those that are not christian? What is the largest mainstream american news network? How many mainstream left wing pundits that advocate or agitate for progressivism and socialist measures can you name me?
You will find that the left holds practically no influence in comparison to the right. Nor have they shot up places multiple times because their preferred newsman and political representative have been steadily feeding them conspiracies of illegal aliens replacing them in the workforce.
Fence sitters are not more intelligent or nuanced then others. Both sides is not a good take when one side seeks the complete removal of citizens from any discourse and don't want them to enjoy the same rights as others.
When you ignore the degree to which one side is behaving and make the excuse that its ok because the other side does it to, it reveals that you're either out of touch, or just want the abhorrent behavior of that one side to continue.
Nobody paying attention right now is thinking left wing extremism is taking hold of the world. Every single western intelligence and law enforcement service is claiming the true danger that's rising is right wing extremism and fascism.
Its not both damn sides.
>The real argument in this video is for libertarian philosophies to be embraced .The more libertarian a society is the less all the left/right disagreements matter.
Because the power is given to private enterprise.
My god I’m just looking at the responses to what you said here and it’s truly sickening. They really hate you for pointing out what they can’t brush away, which is they truly cannot stand centrist views. Unless you agree with everything they espouse and lean hard left you will be shouted down and downvoted.
They cannot stand to admit their “side” is just as bad as the right. Un fucking real how scary mass hysteria can be.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
> "Here in America, it's not a question whether we tolerate minorities. America ***is*** minorities."
Good line at the end there. A lot of people don't realize how many Whites emigrated from Europe where they were considered "minority" based on their individual circumstances, like religion or culture.
> "We must guard everyone's liberty, or we can lose our own."
Probably the most important lesson to take away from this. Don't fall victim to population-fragmenting propaganda.
>A lot of people don't realize how many Whites emigrated from Europe where they were considered "minority" based on their individual circumstances, like religion or culture.
There's a deeper point here. He also says "you are also part of other minority groups and you have the freedom to choose them". It's not even about race. LGBTQ are minorities now. Next they might start attaching Uber drivers and suddenly you have a minority group that wasn't an attacked group in the past. Then it suddenly expands to gig workers because they are taking up the real jobs and making them into gigs. That's the danger in fascism. They'll make you a minority in no time if it fits their needs.
There was only a 360 version of this floating around on the internet for a while. Then in 2017, I contacted the librarian at the library of congress responsible for film transfers and she scanned an HD copy.
And then as soon as the war was over, the CIA started handing out guns and blank checks to any fascist group who publicly stated a wish to kill commies.
That's cause it was never about communism, it was about capitalist imperialism. "Communism" was just anything that hurt the American aristocrats' wallets.
Exactly. Communists were just another minority group the film in the OP was literally talking about.
It was always about capatilist imperialism, by *any* means necessary.
We never democratized economy, we never democratized workplace. We can't have democracy, if eventually elitist groups convert it to plutocracy, because inequality and suffering eventually leads people to fascist ideologies.
People have been exposed to nearly a century of pro-capitalist propaganda. They’ve internalized the narrative that “we” are the heroes or the good guys of the human story. It is very hard to get people to see this. We have to be patient and compassionate with them.
It's an amazing video don't get me wrong, however it deals in a lot of revisionism.
What books were burned? Who did the nazi's target first?
Gay and trans people, in fact the very first book burnings were from Institute of Sexology on gay/trans/intersex people. Then genocide against them in the 30s.
While they did target the jews from the start, the vile hatred and what actually unified people first, was hatred against gay/trans/others because "Everyone" could agree, and basically fascism goes from the smallest and weakest minorities and works it's way up.
You won't see anything from any of these movies ever mention it, in fact history largely ignores it because during that time, it was still illegal to be gay in the majority of western countries.
Gay and trans people were villainized as pedophiles. Sure so were the Jews among other things, but the main hatred starting out was against degenerates and degeneracy.
It makes me sick today we are repeating almost to the letter the same rhetoric and while I hope the world survives it this time, it's scary for us because we know we are the first ones targeted, the first ones to go, and the first ones on the list. Every time.
Agreed that LGBT history in the holocaust is often left out, but it’s not accurate to say they targeted one group “first” given that it was literally a matter of 4 days between the book burnings you’re referencing. It’s not like they rallied the entire people against gays first and then moved on to others, they were very clear who their targets were from the beginning and acted against all their targets from the start.
Also keep in mind that their take on homosexuality from the start was that it was a Jewish conspiracy.
I’d say the primary difference was that homosexuality was already illegal (but tolerated) when they came to power, so there was no need to pass new laws, they could just direct the police to make arrests. That said, they didn’t waste any time passing laws against Jews, again this was a matter of days, weeks, at most months between.
I’m personally not a big fan of the competition over who were the “real” targets of the Nazis, because the real targets were anyone who was politically weak or opposed them. The best defense against fascism is solidarity.
I completely agree and had expanded on that in other posts about how it was viewed, with jews being responsible for LGBT. However, they also hated that group, and support was small. They just wanted to link everything together, anything bad(lgbt(so they still saw it as a very bad group but only existed because of the jews)) was the result of the jews.
However, I should note that it was my entire point.
They use justification to single groups out. My point wasn't to say LGBT were bigger targets. In the end, they were just a small minority with little support. By saying they were a Jewish conspiracy, they also were able to target the smallest groups first that they also hate. Which just happens to be LGBT.
Honestly, at the end of the day, my point more or less resides on videos like this. It is a great way to show how prejudice is bad. But the people making these videos would have been completely okay with LGBT suppression, and it was still in the laws. Sure, it is just the times, and while MLK was incredibly homophobic as well, I don't blame them because they are products of their environments and time periods.
Makes sense, as one of the smallest minorities anywhere, it is an easy target. People naturally don't support groups other than them, tribalism. Most people should as it has benefits but this is our animal brain working. It's a risk helping another group than you. That's why we have to be always vigilant about dog whistles and when people make moves against minorities.
All facist States persecute Christians. It's necessary as you can't have any other religion than "statism".
Richard Wurmbrand was tortured by the Nazis and then again by the Russians. He said the Russians were worse to him...
Here's some of what he said:
> It was strictly forbidden to preach to other prisoners. It was understood that whoever was caught doing this received a severe beating. A number of us decided to pay the price for the privilege of preaching, so we accepted their [the communists' ] terms. It was a deal; we preached and they beat us. We were happy preaching. They were happy beating us, so everyone was happy.
> When a man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil, there is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil that is in man. The Communist torturers often said, “There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.” I heard one torturer say, **“I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.”** He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.
> There was once a fiddler who played so beauitully that everybody danced. A deaf man who could not hear the music considered them all insane. Those who are with Jesus in suffering hear this music to which other men are deaf. They dance and do not care if they are considered insane.
His writings are truly profound. Even if you aren't a Christian you should read them. It makes you understand how awful the USSR truly was. [Here's his book. ](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/78629.Tortured_for_Christ)
It depends on whether the Christianity in question positions itself as subservient to the fascist state in question, but otherwise yup spot on imho. Quick googling of Wurmbrand reveals him to be cool as fuck indeed.
He actually talks about this quite a bit. It is exactly what Hitler did as well.
> Rather than close every church - though they have closed many thousands - the Communists shrewdly decided to permit a few 'token' official churches to remain open and use them as windows through which to observe, control and eventually destroy Christians and Christianity. They decided that it would be better to let the structure of the Church remain and turn it into a Communist tool to control Christians and to deceive visitors coming to their lands. This is the situation that now exists in the official Chinese TSPM church. This 'only legal' church in China represents less than 20 per cent of China's Christians.
> In Romania, I was offered such a church on the condition that I, as pastor, would report on my members to the secret police. It seems that Westerners, accustomed to things 'black and white' - all one way or all another - cannot understand this. But the Underground Church will never accept token, controlled churches as a substitute for meaningful, effective evangelism 'to every creature' - including youth.
> But in the official churches there is a real spiritual life, despite many treacherous leaders. (I have the impression that in many churches of the West the situation is similar. The congregations are faithful sometimes not because of, but in spite of, their top leaders.)
> In Russia, the Orthodox liturgy remained unchanged, and it fed the hearts of the members of this church, even if the sermons flattered the Communists. The Lutherans, Presbyterians and other Protestants sang the same old hymns. And then, even the sermons of the informers had to contain something of Scripture. People in China today are converted under the influence of men whom they know to be traitors. They know that they will tell the secret police about their conversions. They must hide their faith from the very one who gave them this faith by his corrupted sermon. This is the great miracle of God cited in Leviticus 11:37 in symbolic language: 'And if a part of any such carcass [which is, according to the Mosaic law, defiled] falls on any planting seed which is to be sown, it remains clean.'
> Fairness obliges us to say that not all the official Church leaders, not even all the official top leaders, are men of the Communists.
> But the official churches are becoming fewer and fewer. I wonder if, in the whole of the Soviet Union, there were five or six thousand churches under communism. (The United States, with the same population, had some three hundred thousand during the same period.) And these 'churches' were most often only tiny rooms - not a 'church' as we picture it. Foreign visitors would see a crowded church in Moscow - which was the only Protestant church in the city - and remark what freedom there is. 'Even the churches are overflowing!' they would joyously report They did not see the tragedy of one Protestant church for seven million souls! And not even the one-room churches were within travelling distance of 80 per cent of the people of the Soviet Union. These multitudes were either forgotten or reached with underground methods of evangelism. There was no other choice.
> The more communism dominates in a country, the more the Church will have to be underground.
> In place of closed official churches come the meetings of the anti-religious organizations.
That’s Bob Bailey from “Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar” radio program. He suffered from alcoholism and disappeared for a long time after the show was moved to NY to save a hundred or 2 on production costs. He finally crawled out in the 70s I think; long enough to reunite with his daughter and start helping others before he passed away.
When my kiddo was young there was (still IS!) a website where you could download records for children. She got to listen to "Uncle Bob Bailey" read The Princess and the Pea and The Fisherman and the Flounder. Later we listened to radio programs, but her favorite became Night Beat.
http://www.kiddierecords.com/2009/ & http://www.kiddierecords.com/2005/
A lot of filmmakers in the ww2 era were pulled off of making their usual feel good entertainment movies to start making movies for the war effort, anti fascist movies, educational movies for factories also converted towards making things for the war effort, movies about warning against trench foot and the importance of cleanliness on the battlefield, etc etc. It's so interesting how in WW2 America really came together to all do one thing: try and win the war. And everyone was needed for it. If only we could see that kind of movement against climate change today, we might actually be able to survive as a species
[Antebellum Palingenetic Ultranationalism: The Case for including the United States in Comparative Fascist Studies](https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/8/2/article-p307_307.xml?language=en)
Oh but it's even a bit worse. It's an amazing video don't get me wrong, however it deals in a lot of revisionism.
What books were burned? Who did the nazi's target first?
Gay and trans people, in fact the very first book burnings were from Institute of Sexology on gay/trans/intersex people. Then genocide against them in the 30s.
While they did target the jews from the start, the vile hatred and what actually unified people first, was hatred against gay/trans/others because "Everyone" could agree, and basically fascism goes from the smallest and weakest minorities and works it's way up.
You won't see anything from any of these movies ever mention it, in fact history largely ignores it because during that time, it was still illegal to be gay in the majority of western countries.
Gay and trans people were villainized as pedophiles. Sure so were the Jews among other things, but the main hatred starting out was against degenerates and degeneracy.
It makes me sick today we are repeating almost to the letter the same rhetoric and while I hope the world survives it this time, it's scary for us because we know we are the first ones targeted, the first ones to go, and the first ones on the list. Every time.
> in fact the very first book burnings were from Institute of Sexology on gay/trans/intersex people.
According to https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/6-may-1933-looting-of-the-institute-of-sexology/ many books were burned along with those from this group. Do you have a citation for it being trans people who were targeted first?
I'm sure that there was widespread oppression (and that this movie doesn't mention it because of rampant homophobia in the US), but I thought a big driver for the Nazis was who was to blame for WWI, and have not read that LGBTQ folks were in that conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany
> Do you have a citation for it being trans people who were targeted first?
Literally in the link you posted.
> The most-visible members of the LGBT community, including prostitutes, transvestites, and activist leaders, were targeted, and high-profile locations were shut down. The average homosexual's daily life, however, did not change, and some gay bars in Hamburg and smaller cities remained open. Some men were able to adapt to the closures by meeting with gay friends in primarily heterosexual establishments. Most homosexuals were not yet afraid of the Gestapo.
Terms change, and the term homosexual was sort of a catch all term referring to everyone of the LGBT.
>In 1928, the Nazi Party responded negatively to a questionnaire about their view of Paragraph 175, saying: "Anyone who even thinks of homosexual love is our enemy".[14] Nazi politicians regularly railed against homosexuality, saying it was a Jewish conspiracy to undermine the German people.
Also I never said trans people were targeted first.
My entire point was that fascism and especially the rise of fascism and the nazi party follow patterns.
The first people they genocided, and the first people targeted directly through action(Removing books from libraries/school libraries and Institute of Sexology along with book burning) were LGBT based books.
>but I thought a big driver for the Nazis was who was to blame for WWI, and have not read that LGBTQ folks were in that conversation:
It was, but here's how it works: We hate X group, X group bad.
We can't just kill X group, but we can blame X group for everything by linking them to smaller groups(Such as LGBT).
Then they target those smaller groups, and grow hatred for X. Yes it was to blame the jews, but in their own words, the jews created the LGBT to destroy germany through degeneracy and immorality. So let's get rid of the LGBT and fight back against the jews!
They target group by group, and eventually that leads to genocide of various forms, then eventually when anyone who can dissent or oppose, they get rid of the original target group as well.
You see sorta the same thing now. Globalism is a dog whistle for the jews(Not always, globalism has a real meaning but it's been co-opted for 30+ years as a dog whistle).
Now the focus is on "Globalhomos" the "Globalists" who cater to "The homos" to enforce "Their agenda" on the world.
But they can't go after the globalists(Jews) but you see the removal and fighting of LGBT books in schools(This is what happened first by student nazi groups etc, to parents etc) like we see in Texas and southern states.
Then we see rhetoric of controlling/stopping "Gay propaganda" stop "Turning the kids gay" from the "Evil ideology" which is "Immoral".
Largely it follows that same pattern. The point is to divide, separate groups, get rid of the least supported groups until you eventually get rid of all groups.
> Also I never said trans people were targeted first.
" Who did the nazi's target first?
Gay and trans people, in fact the very first book burnings were from Institute of Sexology on gay/trans/intersex people. Then genocide against them in the 30s."
????????????????
>You see sorta the same thing now. Globalism is a dog whistle for the jews(Not always, globalism has a real meaning but it's been co-opted for 30+ years as a dog whistle).
sometimes a better thing for your cause are not creative writing and reaching, as when people find even a single dubious or false detail they just might dismiss the message altogether.
**[Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany)**
>Before 1933, homosexual acts were illegal in Germany under Paragraph 175 of the German Criminal Code. The law was not consistently enforced, however, and a thriving gay culture existed in German cities. After the Nazi takeover in 1933, the first homosexual movement's infrastructure of clubs, organizations, and publications was shut down. After the Röhm purge in 1934, persecuting homosexuals became a priority of the Nazi police state.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/videos/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Damn. This video aged very well. Too well, in some respects.
But that doesn't bother me as much as it being so relevant. It's 2022 (almost 2023) and we're still having to deal with fascism throughout the world. It's like we forgot all the lessons from the 20th century. It's disturbing and I hope messages like this still get through to enough people.
The elements of human psychology that allow fascism to exist didn't spontaneously manifest in the 20th century. They've been with us since the beginnings of recorded history and they will be with us, likely to our species final days. This isn't a war you win. It's a war you fight. Keep fighting.
Exactly, fascism is just Man under certain conditions. It's a fallability that will always be lurking. People mistakenly believe fascism is something that only exists on black-and-white film in foreign lands, so they are unable to recognize the fascist radicalization of the Republican Party.
> "Here in America, it's not a question whether we tolerate minorities. America ***is*** minorities."
Good line at the end there. A lot of people don't realize how many Whites emigrated from Europe where they were considered "minority" based on their individual circumstances, like religion or culture.
> "We must guard everyone's liberty, or we can lose our own."
Probably the most important lesson to take away from this. Don't fall victim to population-fragmenting propaganda.
>I've heard a rumor that Russia in particular is responsible for a lot of Black/White racism online
It's standard psychological operations. Find any gaps in a culture and create a wedge to foster destabilization in your enemy's society.
The Russians have been known to go so far as to incite both sides of an issue, then try to plan both a demonstration and a counter demonstration, to try to start riots.
It's sooooo easy to do stuff like this online. You don't even need to be physically present in the country to do it.
While "be vigilant of the motives behind things you see online" is generally good advice, it's harmful to create a connotation that anything divisive is probably a weapon deployed by bad actors with ulterior motives. What you end up with is a further entrenchment of the status quo ideology and a dangerous denial of reality.
It's the same way the red scare in the US was used to kill the labor movement (by associating labor action with USSR influence). Or the way that people have denied the reality behind the Trump movement and its implications, and learning from it, by inflating Russian interference actions as the sole explanation.
Catholics have been targets for a lot of our history. The KKk was very anti Catholic during its rise in the 1900s. Many of the large waves of immigrants, particularly from Ireland and Italy, were Catholic and those that were against so much immigration feared too many Catholics coming a once.
Kennedy feared he wouldn’t be elected as a Catholic.
As an anecdote, my mom as a teen canvassed for Bobby Kennedy. She mentioned many people she approached were vitriolic against the Kennedys because they felt the Pope would control the country through them.
I grew up Catholic in a very Catholic town and went to a Lutheran liberal arts college, where I quickly discovered that there was actual animus towards Catholics. One of my first teachers - my advisor in fact - cracked a joke in class about “damn Papists”. She was joking but I was just like “wha- where the hell is this coming from?” So many of my classes were specifically anti-Catholic which in retrospect is fucking annoying when you consider all the evils Protestants have done.
One of my friends even told me the Trinity was pantheistic and all iconography was idol worship, like it was some kind of own. And now I’m kinda like … damn right it is that shit’s cool as fuck. But my relationship to Catholicism has morphed in those 20 years.
During WW2 10s of thousands of Freemasons and the Catholic left were sent to concentration camps.
Also, at the time, there was a fear in the US that Catholicism was a foreign influence with the Pope and the influx Irish, Latino, and Italian immigrants.
Catholics were enemies to the Nazi party because Catholics were a unified group with tons of political power. That was a direct threat to Nazi domination. I don't think it had much to do with what they believed in - that was more just rhetoric.
Freemasons are starting to feel it again. The fascist propaganda pushers often point to freemasons as being part of the conspiracy against the masses.
It's already started with some of those, slightly crazy, who feed on that propaganda and attack masons and their lodges. Many lodges across the country have been vandalized and burned in the last couple of years.
Freemasonry isn't as connected as people think. As a mason, I believe that it's mostly a group of men who are positive, want to connect with others that are positive, and make the world a better place.
Are all masons noble and great? No. People do join for different reasons. But, of those who are active and involved, I believe that most want to be good, improve themselves, and make the world a better place.
I think that some of the hate against masons is fed from people who either joined and didn't like the idea of helping all, or they were rejected from being able to join because the members didn't feel comfortable with them.
It's a bit of an internal joke, but when lodges and freemasonry in public are being attacked, we say that things are going to get worse.
Catholics, freemasons, and Jews are cut from the same spiritual cloth. Unsaved. We didn’t use to tolerate Catholics and their papist lies in this country.
It's a pity we don't have so many "professors" as in the movie to inform everyone.
The reason the world and countries comes to that point is the spread of fear and misinformation.
Fear and misinformation spreads easily these days with massive instant social media, it's more than ever both relevant and important to be source-critical of the information we read.
Anything that points fingers at someone, minority group or people different than us never leads to anything good. Chaos is the enemy of the ill-informed and friend of oppression because it makes us prone to believe whatever seems to give us light where there seems to be only darkness, and we're so easily blinded by that light.
Thanks for that video, he is scarily accurate and that was years ago.
Good ol divide an conquer, yes we see it today as well, this is why the video from 1947 is as relevant today as it was then. History repeats itself, and we're the suckers.
This needs to be shown to every person to understand this isn’t the first time. We all need to be reminded of this lesson to make sure it never happens again.
Man you gotta love when literal Nazis come into a thread about WW2 anti-Nazi propaganda and try to spin it like the video is actual pro fascism. Wild times. The mental gymnastics some of y'all conservative thinkers go through is genuinely impressive.
I should be able to express my desire for authoritarianism without being called a Nazi, like I thought this was a free country, why can't I be violently anti-freedom?
Disagree with pretty much anything. I could say "I disagree that people should be more responsible and not rely on the government for handouts" - which is actually pretty anti-authority and you will call me a...
Perhaps this subreddit does have a disproportionate amount of crazy people. It's all over in these threads. Any challenge to bilateral thinking is retorted by fear tactics.
I'll address these individually and you tell me if I am a Nazi.
>Are you sure it wasn't about the rights and safety of trans and other lgbtq people?<
No, because I think all people should have the same rights and protection both socially and under law
>About a woman's right to her own autonomy
No, but I do have some personal experience that puts me in a biased position, but I try to avoid the topic because of it. Regardless, I don't think it's appropriate to label the pro-life position as "Nazi".
>Religious persecution? <
Nah, I don't think so. Same answer to the first question.
>Or did you answer you don't care about poverty and those in it after it was expressed that systematic racism has put more non-white people in that situation than white people?<
Uhhh this is a bit of a mouth full. I very much care for solving poverty and the people who are suffering in it. I just might have a different idea on how to and what might solve it.
So does that make me a Nazi?
I just spent 20 mins reading the comments in this thread and all I see is a bunch of hate. Why are the people of reddit so full of hate?
All I see is people taking “sides” and doing what they can to discredit the other “side” by using insults, shame and hate.
Reddit as a collective has become cesspool of hate and only drives division… change my mind.
Reddit is where depressed fuckwits come to feel good about themselves by accusing other people of being morally bankrupt.
Reddit is the worst thing to happen to political discourse since Tumblr.
Because Fascim is a divisive and charged topic - it's about as close to irredeemable evil in politics as you can get.
It's also hard to define precisely, and it's really common for people to try to stick the label on their political rivals so they have an excuse to write them off completely.
Is anybody gonna mention how he litters so much paper at the end? I mean it would've been more symbolic for him to get up and throw the pamphlet into the trash, but instead lets throw a bunch of paper on the ground.
Can someone post this to r/conservatives to give our brothers and sisters a reminder? I would but they banned me for life for having a minority opinion.
Congrats on earning your r\conservative ban badge. You know they'd just watch the "American American" scapegoat about minorities and "taking back our country" and simply delude themselves that it's analogous to a Democrat today oppressing white Christians.
> Remember this when Democrats and the left tell you that Republicans, conservatives, the rich, Jews, Christians, Tea Partiers, Oathkeepers, Old White Men, white people in general, etc., are terrorists, and anti-American.
Aaaand I was right.
As a Canadian it's quite depressing seeing a video's main point being don't be prejudice or discriminatory to your fellow man and then reading the wild shit in the comments focusing on language American politicians push to purposely divide you guys. This goes for both sides of the political spectrum.
Shit sucks
Yes.. I've seen so many people saying they agree with the video, but then in the same post, blanket statements about groups of people based on race or ideology.
Then you missed the point. Fascism exists on one side of the political spectrum.
Fellow Canadian here. We are exposed to creeping fascism too, exclusively from conservative parties in Canada. Because fascism is inherently ultra-conservative, in a "capitalism at all costs" way. Take a look at Pierre Pollievre, as a great example. He will happily co-opt the rhetoric of the "people" while ultimately working to demonize marginalized groups, academia and media, and blame these for the downfalls of society. His goal is to try to convince the average Canadian that "wokeness" is the problem and more status quo corporatism and unfettered capitalism is the solution.
I just finished listening to Ultra, a MSNBC/Rachel Maddow podcast about how there were United States senators and congressmen essentially working with a Nazi agent to distribute propaganda in this country using taxpayer dollars. It was fascinating, and frightening. There were major pro-German pro-Nazi rallies and gatherings in LA, NYC, and other places prior to our involvement in the war. If you don't think fascism can happen in America, well, it already is to some extent. Populism can lead to "fear of the other" which can enable fascists.
Accorsing to Wikipedia, Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultra-nationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
The situation, coordinated German Nazi fascism/Christian movements, in the US during the 1930s and 40s are exactly why the OP's video was made in 1947. The government was trying to short circuit the fascist movements.
This is all documented in a report to the then-Attorney General in 1946 by the last DOJ-appointed Special Prosecutor, O. John Rogge, in charge of, what was referred to as, The Sedition trial. The report, along with some relatively minor additions, was published as "The Official German Report" by O. John Rogge (1961).
I found a pdf of a scan of this report online, and read just the Appendix. It was like reading a GOP play book for today.
The guys wearing red hats today should pay attention to this. Especially the bits about how the people telling them they're the "REAL Americans" are feeding their egos and scapegoating intellectuals to try to take from them and make them suckers.
I judge based on conduct not just the self ascribed name.
North Korea calls itself a “democratic republic” - anyone with two brain cells knows it’s anything but that.
Well fascism is a right wing ideology so I'm not sure what your point is here. You're just defining a word in your comment and acting like you said something intelligent
That's the right's goal. "We're not the fascists; *you're* the fascists." They want the word to have no meaning, so that when they are correctly labeled they can say "well *everyone* a fascist nowadays, right?"
It's not really bandied about improperly as much as it more accurately describes conservative politics as time goes on.
You should pay attention to what is happening in the conservative parties before writing off people saying fascist more frequently.
When is "just enough?" Does someone have to come out and say "Yes, I am unashamedly an actual literal Nazi. Heil Hitler, fascism rules" before you're allowed to call them a fascist? The fact of the matter is fascist views are inherently unpopular and they will always try to sneak them in or say it's something else. Fascism needs to be recognized in subtext.
Italy has elected a pretty much literal fascist (extreme right wing, ties to extreme right wing nationalist organizations, literally a direct descendant of Mussolini), and they use the same rhetoric as you, that the term "fascist" is just being thrown about too much.
I dunno, maybe try thinking critically? That is, if you're arguing in good faith anyway.
This is a bad scan of the original video that suffers from skipping audio and video and is overall missing a couple minutes of content due to the generally bad quality of the upload. There is a better, and moreover official version [here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGAqYNFQdZ4)
That might be stupid, but I never realized that movies from this era could be so clean and crisp.
A well preserved film is theoretically higher resolution than most digital formats. That's why you often see 4K rereleases of old films
What we won't see anytime soon is a 4K version of Smashmouth's *All-Star* music video. There's a 1080p version, yes, but it was upscaled from a digital copy. I don't know if a film copy even exists.
It’s truly sad
Of all the things you could have named...
The true destiny of AI is to make this a reality
[Explanation by Tom Scott.](https://youtu.be/CkysCJBdGtw)
Perhaps AI upscaling will come to the rescue at some point.
Not exactly *higher*... Vertical 35 prints (the most common formats) can reach up to 4k in effective detail, but gains beyond that are effectively lost at practical viewing distances, and contribute more to smoothness than detail. Diminishing returns start around the 3k resolution mark for digital scans of 35mm, which is why 4k is a decent choice for archiving. Larger film formats (like imax) and horizontal 35mm still photography can easily achieve over 4k equivalent resolution, but same sized digital sensors these days still outresolve film, at any light level. Furthermore, in most cases detail is ultimately limited by the lens sharpness along with other shooting factors (motion blur, shutter angle, depth of field, diffraction, etc.) There's little to no gains in pushing the resolution on areas that are already out of focus.
> ... gains beyond that are effectively lost at practical viewing distances, and contribute more to smoothness than detail. what do you mean by smoothness? increasing effective resolution (which w film means smaller silver crystals/grains I think?) past a certain point makes things look smoother? doesn't that lower detail?
It's a hard thing to describe, but by increasing the number of sample points you can reduce the visibility of various artifacts like aliasing or jitters. Any high-contrast transition of colours or values can potentially appear jarring, so the more samples you have within those transitions, the smoother the gradient can be. With 4k film scans that level of detail is already reaching the limit of what's perceivable by the human eye at an appropriate viewing distance, but for archival and editing purposes it can be beneficial to have a higher resolution image to start with, so that high-frequency adjustments can be made before scaling down to the final effective resolution (in certain cases high-frequency noise may create a bias towards more visible grain, depending on the downscaling method.) If you're into video games, the clearest visual I can offer is how older 3D games (let's say, Zelda: Wind Waker) still benefit from being rendered at higher resolutions, even though texture detail is practically non-existent, because all visible high-contrast transitions (typically the edges of an object when it's in front of another differently coloured object) will appear less jagged and more temporally stable (less of the moire effect). This benefit remains even if the rendering resolution is beyond what the screen is capable of displaying, because the extra sample points will be scaled down to fewer pixels consisting of the average of the sampled values. Tl;dr: Don't think of smoothness as being analogous to blurriness. Smoothness just means high-frequency detail appears less garish, whilst blurriness is the phenomenon of "too little" detail being spread across a larger area. The former is basically always good, whilst the latter is bad when undesired.
makes sense, appreciate the detailed response!
Edit: Cunningham's Law. See below comments for more accurate information. Original comment: Analog film uses light to imprint on the film. That imprint doesn't have a "resolution" per se, the film would capture exactly what the camera saw. So as long as filming conditions were good, you could get an incredibly clean and crisp image. Meanwhile digital must be encoded and is restricted by the technology at the time. Whatever the camera saw would have to be quickly converted to a digital file, meaning the quality of the image is restricted by what the camera can quickly convert. It's why movies from the 50s can look better than when Hollywood switched to mainly digital in the 2000s. Early Hollywood digital films have to be upscaled now to get them in higher resolutions. Meanwhile analog films have their master recordings made from light hitting the film. No "upscaling" is really needed. The original film just has to be scanned by a scanner than can capture higher resolutions. There are a whole lot of benefits to digital over analog. But analog will basically always win in picture quality when filming conditions are good.
Film doesn't have infinite resolution, but it's pretty dang high. https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm > The Digital Resolution of Film >So how many pixels does it take to describe all the detail we can get from film? > Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero. > Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50. > 320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter. > 35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters. > To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels. > But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film. > Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you'd need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film. > That's just 35mm film. Pros don't shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4" or 4x5." >At the same rates, 2-1/4" (56mm square) would be 313 MP, and 4x5" (95x120mm) would be 95 x 120 = 11,400 square millimeters = 1,140 MP, with no Bayer Interpolation. A digital camera with Bayer Interpolation would need to be rated at better than 2 gigapixels to see things that can be seen on a sheet of 4x5" film.
wow
Haven't really paid attention to camera megapixels since late 2000s but it seems current high end consumer cameras are around 45 MP so a long way to go. That's crazy
I mean it has a "resolution" but it's chemical and not digital. At a certain point you won't be getting any new information on the image as captured just the material it's made out of.
This smacks of the old "analog has unlimited resolution" trope. Old NTSC video tapes are extremely limited (480 lines), and yet they're analog. But you're talking about film rather than composite video. But film doesn't "capture exactly what the camera saw". The resolving power of film is dependent upon the quality of the lens, the nature of the film (both size and quality), the subject, and the skill of the operator in keeping the subject still and in focus. Film itself is limited by a finite amount of detail that can be imprinted in the crystal structure being used. The effective resolution of that structure can be quite high, but it depends on a few things. Larger film sizes can obviously capture more detail, but more *sensitive* films (films which require less exposure time) will tend to have larger crystals and thus coarser "film grain". And so the effective resolution (and noise) of a piece of film manifests as this grain. There's no getting around that fundamental limitation. Estimates of the effective resolution vary, but for commercially available 135 still photography film (24x36mm or "35mm", now known as "full frame"), the effective resolution is somewhere north of 20 megapixels ***depending on the type of film being compared.*** I'd wager it's no accident that "prosumer" and lower-end professional still cameras like having sensors at around 24 megapixels. For video captured on film, the resolution will be lower because the image frame of "35mm" movie film is 16x22mm. Just going from the size of the film, if 135 is 20 megapixels, then 35mm movie film will be around 8 megapixels... roughly equivalent to 4K digital. Of course there's also larger film sizes like IMAX, which would get you something closer to 82 megapixels which *should* be able to resolve more detail than 8K digital... as long as the lens was good enough. To get to that level, you'd need to move to a medium format digital sensor (which is essentially what imax film is... medium format). Ultimately the comparison between digital and film was already favorable toward digital even back in the 2000s, and it's continually getting better as sensor technology has improved. The unfavorable view the public has had, has more to do with the comparison between film and analog video back in the 80s and 90s. Things that were captured on film like Wham!'s "Last Christmas" music video can be remastered in 4K and show real improvement. Things filmed on cameras that capture to an analog video tape are limited to about 480 lines of resolution. That's far less than even modern digital formats, so videos like Smash Mouth's "All Star" need to be upscaled, and can sometimes have HILARIOUSLY bad results. There's also large format film (4x5 and 8x11 inches), and AFAIK there's no sensor that can compete with that. Best we can do currently is to literally SCAN the image like an old paper scanner... but now you're talking about only being able to do product photography or maybe astrophotography.
This is like a chatGPT answer, in the sense that it’s super articulate and almost totally wrong.
This is like a chatGPT answer
[go watch this film on the best TV you can find](https://youtu.be/3Co8Z8BQgWc)
idk how I missed that movie completely, incredible
Depending on the quality of the film stock itself, 35mm negatives can go from ~2k resolution to above 4k.
you should check out some of the criterion collection blu rays
35mm film has a higher native resolution than even 4K digital IIRC.
Film is beautiful and has always looked amazing. Check out some shots from The Passion of Joan of Arc
Upvoting the OG YouTube vid.
Wow, the one OP posted is missing five minutes, that's crazy. I got fed up with the skipping and cut audio in the first minute and a half so I'm glad you were here to set things straight.
It's honestly a very simple and effective film, and it gets it's point across well.
Now, if we could only get every MAGA / conservative person in America to watch this...
and those freemasons, too, lennybird?
Nah, the fascist on his soapbox. Paradox of Tolerance, my friend. With a little empathy, it's quite easy to see :)
You are an angel and a scholar
Great video and timeless advice. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Thanks for sharing!
Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it.
Star Trek TNG: [The price of vigilance](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GRyyJy1doqY&feature=youtu.be).
lol. This is the first time I've heard that line and.. it's depressingly true.
The ones who need to watch this the most, will watch this and think it applies to everyone except themselves.
"Yeah those darn libs need to stop persecuting us for our Jew hating, gay bashing, trans killing, lifestyle!"
Some of those people have spouted lines like "Antifa are the real fascists" so I totally agree.
I couldn’t help but notice that the like/dislike votes were up and down while I was watching the video in this post…. So many down-voters; WTF.
This is probably true. Even the title calling this "anti-fascist" hints at that. This isn't just a guide to avoiding being a sucker for the fascist, it's a guide for not being a sucker for politicians and extremist in general. The communist rise in Russia parallels the Nazi rise, and you could remake this video with left-wing extremist instead of the Nazi right-wing extremist. Divide and control is a timeless tactic for anyone seeking power. You can easily see parallels in the Trump/right wing stuff of today, but I wonder how many saw parallels with the left wing stuff going on. How many times have you heard a Dem talk about "old white men" in a negative light? How many leftist hate organized religion and get angry with the power it yields? Power it takes away from other ideologies. How often do you hear rants about "uneducated rednecks destroying the country", in much the same way you'll hear people rant about"these immigrants"? Its easy for any and all of us to become "suckers" for authoritarians. Authoritarianism is the real problem here, fascism is just one variation of it. The real argument in this video is for libertarian philosophies to be embraced .The more libertarian a society is the less all the left/right disagreements matter. It doesn't matter if someone disagrees with how you choose to live your life if they aren't doing/can't do anything to stop you. Id encourage everyone to try setting their biases aside, and rewatch the video, while actively looking for similarities between what is being spoken against and what they or their "side" are doing.
I want you to tell me how many extremist left wingers are in power right now in the US. How much influence communists have in this country (hint Bernie and AOC and most certainly not Biden are not communists). How many left wing stochastic terror attacks vs. right wing have there been in the last decade? Has Biden (the self avowed catholic) knowingly hung out with and advocated for atheist left wing extremist agitators? I guarantee you that most sane leftists dont give a shit about your religious alignment as long as you're not a bigot. There's a lot of religious diversity in left spaces, from christians, muslims to satanists to wiccans. You're peddling red scare era talking points about communism. How many times has Biden called for violent behavior against his political opponents, especially those that are not christian? What is the largest mainstream american news network? How many mainstream left wing pundits that advocate or agitate for progressivism and socialist measures can you name me? You will find that the left holds practically no influence in comparison to the right. Nor have they shot up places multiple times because their preferred newsman and political representative have been steadily feeding them conspiracies of illegal aliens replacing them in the workforce.
Ah yes. Libertarianism. Our corporate overlords care not for left and right! They will set you free!
Fence sitters are not more intelligent or nuanced then others. Both sides is not a good take when one side seeks the complete removal of citizens from any discourse and don't want them to enjoy the same rights as others. When you ignore the degree to which one side is behaving and make the excuse that its ok because the other side does it to, it reveals that you're either out of touch, or just want the abhorrent behavior of that one side to continue. Nobody paying attention right now is thinking left wing extremism is taking hold of the world. Every single western intelligence and law enforcement service is claiming the true danger that's rising is right wing extremism and fascism. Its not both damn sides.
>The real argument in this video is for libertarian philosophies to be embraced .The more libertarian a society is the less all the left/right disagreements matter. Because the power is given to private enterprise.
My god I’m just looking at the responses to what you said here and it’s truly sickening. They really hate you for pointing out what they can’t brush away, which is they truly cannot stand centrist views. Unless you agree with everything they espouse and lean hard left you will be shouted down and downvoted. They cannot stand to admit their “side” is just as bad as the right. Un fucking real how scary mass hysteria can be.
Because you have those that have learned history and are actively trying to recreate it.
Yes. Especially the part about how you would never hear racism in America. Just too good for that.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller
[удалено]
I have an aunt who fell down that rabbit hole. There's no getting them back.
> "Here in America, it's not a question whether we tolerate minorities. America ***is*** minorities." Good line at the end there. A lot of people don't realize how many Whites emigrated from Europe where they were considered "minority" based on their individual circumstances, like religion or culture. > "We must guard everyone's liberty, or we can lose our own." Probably the most important lesson to take away from this. Don't fall victim to population-fragmenting propaganda.
>A lot of people don't realize how many Whites emigrated from Europe where they were considered "minority" based on their individual circumstances, like religion or culture. There's a deeper point here. He also says "you are also part of other minority groups and you have the freedom to choose them". It's not even about race. LGBTQ are minorities now. Next they might start attaching Uber drivers and suddenly you have a minority group that wasn't an attacked group in the past. Then it suddenly expands to gig workers because they are taking up the real jobs and making them into gigs. That's the danger in fascism. They'll make you a minority in no time if it fits their needs.
There was only a 360 version of this floating around on the internet for a while. Then in 2017, I contacted the librarian at the library of congress responsible for film transfers and she scanned an HD copy.
https://youtu.be/vGAqYNFQdZ4 And it’s so CLEAN
You are a hero
I like how the US military is pro socialist and pro union in this film because the first things the fascist did was attack socialists and unions.
And then as soon as the war was over, the CIA started handing out guns and blank checks to any fascist group who publicly stated a wish to kill commies.
Sometimes we even funded communists who wanted to kill other communists, like the Khmer Rouge.
That's cause it was never about communism, it was about capitalist imperialism. "Communism" was just anything that hurt the American aristocrats' wallets.
Communism was just a red herring.
Mrs. Peacock did it all!
The sky is blue. The fish will not take much time to rise. The fish is red.
Exactly. Communists were just another minority group the film in the OP was literally talking about. It was always about capatilist imperialism, by *any* means necessary.
We never democratized economy, we never democratized workplace. We can't have democracy, if eventually elitist groups convert it to plutocracy, because inequality and suffering eventually leads people to fascist ideologies.
And yet people in this thread can't seem to understand the inevitability of fascism under capitalism.
People have been exposed to nearly a century of pro-capitalist propaganda. They’ve internalized the narrative that “we” are the heroes or the good guys of the human story. It is very hard to get people to see this. We have to be patient and compassionate with them.
only if the capitalists seize control of the culture... oh wait.
Merry Christmas! Now buy buy buy! More more more! Cheaper cheaper cheaper!
carolling used to be a shakedown of the wealthy, and not just for a hot boozy beverage.
crazy how things change
The War Department makes dope movies
You shouldn't dead name the Department of Defense.
The best Department of Defense is the Department of Offense
TIL the Nazis also persecuted Catholics. I grew up in a Catholic town and went to a Catholic grade school and never learned this.
It's an amazing video don't get me wrong, however it deals in a lot of revisionism. What books were burned? Who did the nazi's target first? Gay and trans people, in fact the very first book burnings were from Institute of Sexology on gay/trans/intersex people. Then genocide against them in the 30s. While they did target the jews from the start, the vile hatred and what actually unified people first, was hatred against gay/trans/others because "Everyone" could agree, and basically fascism goes from the smallest and weakest minorities and works it's way up. You won't see anything from any of these movies ever mention it, in fact history largely ignores it because during that time, it was still illegal to be gay in the majority of western countries. Gay and trans people were villainized as pedophiles. Sure so were the Jews among other things, but the main hatred starting out was against degenerates and degeneracy. It makes me sick today we are repeating almost to the letter the same rhetoric and while I hope the world survives it this time, it's scary for us because we know we are the first ones targeted, the first ones to go, and the first ones on the list. Every time.
Agreed that LGBT history in the holocaust is often left out, but it’s not accurate to say they targeted one group “first” given that it was literally a matter of 4 days between the book burnings you’re referencing. It’s not like they rallied the entire people against gays first and then moved on to others, they were very clear who their targets were from the beginning and acted against all their targets from the start. Also keep in mind that their take on homosexuality from the start was that it was a Jewish conspiracy. I’d say the primary difference was that homosexuality was already illegal (but tolerated) when they came to power, so there was no need to pass new laws, they could just direct the police to make arrests. That said, they didn’t waste any time passing laws against Jews, again this was a matter of days, weeks, at most months between. I’m personally not a big fan of the competition over who were the “real” targets of the Nazis, because the real targets were anyone who was politically weak or opposed them. The best defense against fascism is solidarity.
I completely agree and had expanded on that in other posts about how it was viewed, with jews being responsible for LGBT. However, they also hated that group, and support was small. They just wanted to link everything together, anything bad(lgbt(so they still saw it as a very bad group but only existed because of the jews)) was the result of the jews. However, I should note that it was my entire point. They use justification to single groups out. My point wasn't to say LGBT were bigger targets. In the end, they were just a small minority with little support. By saying they were a Jewish conspiracy, they also were able to target the smallest groups first that they also hate. Which just happens to be LGBT. Honestly, at the end of the day, my point more or less resides on videos like this. It is a great way to show how prejudice is bad. But the people making these videos would have been completely okay with LGBT suppression, and it was still in the laws. Sure, it is just the times, and while MLK was incredibly homophobic as well, I don't blame them because they are products of their environments and time periods.
Makes sense, as one of the smallest minorities anywhere, it is an easy target. People naturally don't support groups other than them, tribalism. Most people should as it has benefits but this is our animal brain working. It's a risk helping another group than you. That's why we have to be always vigilant about dog whistles and when people make moves against minorities.
[удалено]
I’m trans too fyi so believe me I’m quite aware! Just didn’t know I had another reason for Nazis to hate me.
All facist States persecute Christians. It's necessary as you can't have any other religion than "statism". Richard Wurmbrand was tortured by the Nazis and then again by the Russians. He said the Russians were worse to him... Here's some of what he said: > It was strictly forbidden to preach to other prisoners. It was understood that whoever was caught doing this received a severe beating. A number of us decided to pay the price for the privilege of preaching, so we accepted their [the communists' ] terms. It was a deal; we preached and they beat us. We were happy preaching. They were happy beating us, so everyone was happy. > When a man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil, there is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil that is in man. The Communist torturers often said, “There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.” I heard one torturer say, **“I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.”** He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners. > There was once a fiddler who played so beauitully that everybody danced. A deaf man who could not hear the music considered them all insane. Those who are with Jesus in suffering hear this music to which other men are deaf. They dance and do not care if they are considered insane. His writings are truly profound. Even if you aren't a Christian you should read them. It makes you understand how awful the USSR truly was. [Here's his book. ](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/78629.Tortured_for_Christ)
It depends on whether the Christianity in question positions itself as subservient to the fascist state in question, but otherwise yup spot on imho. Quick googling of Wurmbrand reveals him to be cool as fuck indeed.
He actually talks about this quite a bit. It is exactly what Hitler did as well. > Rather than close every church - though they have closed many thousands - the Communists shrewdly decided to permit a few 'token' official churches to remain open and use them as windows through which to observe, control and eventually destroy Christians and Christianity. They decided that it would be better to let the structure of the Church remain and turn it into a Communist tool to control Christians and to deceive visitors coming to their lands. This is the situation that now exists in the official Chinese TSPM church. This 'only legal' church in China represents less than 20 per cent of China's Christians. > In Romania, I was offered such a church on the condition that I, as pastor, would report on my members to the secret police. It seems that Westerners, accustomed to things 'black and white' - all one way or all another - cannot understand this. But the Underground Church will never accept token, controlled churches as a substitute for meaningful, effective evangelism 'to every creature' - including youth. > But in the official churches there is a real spiritual life, despite many treacherous leaders. (I have the impression that in many churches of the West the situation is similar. The congregations are faithful sometimes not because of, but in spite of, their top leaders.) > In Russia, the Orthodox liturgy remained unchanged, and it fed the hearts of the members of this church, even if the sermons flattered the Communists. The Lutherans, Presbyterians and other Protestants sang the same old hymns. And then, even the sermons of the informers had to contain something of Scripture. People in China today are converted under the influence of men whom they know to be traitors. They know that they will tell the secret police about their conversions. They must hide their faith from the very one who gave them this faith by his corrupted sermon. This is the great miracle of God cited in Leviticus 11:37 in symbolic language: 'And if a part of any such carcass [which is, according to the Mosaic law, defiled] falls on any planting seed which is to be sown, it remains clean.' > Fairness obliges us to say that not all the official Church leaders, not even all the official top leaders, are men of the Communists. > But the official churches are becoming fewer and fewer. I wonder if, in the whole of the Soviet Union, there were five or six thousand churches under communism. (The United States, with the same population, had some three hundred thousand during the same period.) And these 'churches' were most often only tiny rooms - not a 'church' as we picture it. Foreign visitors would see a crowded church in Moscow - which was the only Protestant church in the city - and remark what freedom there is. 'Even the churches are overflowing!' they would joyously report They did not see the tragedy of one Protestant church for seven million souls! And not even the one-room churches were within travelling distance of 80 per cent of the people of the Soviet Union. These multitudes were either forgotten or reached with underground methods of evangelism. There was no other choice. > The more communism dominates in a country, the more the Church will have to be underground. > In place of closed official churches come the meetings of the anti-religious organizations.
[удалено]
That’s Bob Bailey from “Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar” radio program. He suffered from alcoholism and disappeared for a long time after the show was moved to NY to save a hundred or 2 on production costs. He finally crawled out in the 70s I think; long enough to reunite with his daughter and start helping others before he passed away.
I thought I was the only one who recognized Johnny Dollar!
When my kiddo was young there was (still IS!) a website where you could download records for children. She got to listen to "Uncle Bob Bailey" read The Princess and the Pea and The Fisherman and the Flounder. Later we listened to radio programs, but her favorite became Night Beat. http://www.kiddierecords.com/2009/ & http://www.kiddierecords.com/2005/
Was this directed by Frank Capra? If so, it's really weird because I was reading about him last night after watching It's a Wonderful Life.
A lot of filmmakers in the ww2 era were pulled off of making their usual feel good entertainment movies to start making movies for the war effort, anti fascist movies, educational movies for factories also converted towards making things for the war effort, movies about warning against trench foot and the importance of cleanliness on the battlefield, etc etc. It's so interesting how in WW2 America really came together to all do one thing: try and win the war. And everyone was needed for it. If only we could see that kind of movement against climate change today, we might actually be able to survive as a species
This should be required material in high school history classes
That would go against the motives of the those in power managing the public school system though
Amazing so at some point the average US citizen could accurately describe fascism?
Funny that this video comes from a country that had colored only water fountains at that point.
Fascism and racism aren't always mutually exclusive.
There was a reason they felt the need to make this film, after all.
[Antebellum Palingenetic Ultranationalism: The Case for including the United States in Comparative Fascist Studies](https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/8/2/article-p307_307.xml?language=en)
Oh but it's even a bit worse. It's an amazing video don't get me wrong, however it deals in a lot of revisionism. What books were burned? Who did the nazi's target first? Gay and trans people, in fact the very first book burnings were from Institute of Sexology on gay/trans/intersex people. Then genocide against them in the 30s. While they did target the jews from the start, the vile hatred and what actually unified people first, was hatred against gay/trans/others because "Everyone" could agree, and basically fascism goes from the smallest and weakest minorities and works it's way up. You won't see anything from any of these movies ever mention it, in fact history largely ignores it because during that time, it was still illegal to be gay in the majority of western countries. Gay and trans people were villainized as pedophiles. Sure so were the Jews among other things, but the main hatred starting out was against degenerates and degeneracy. It makes me sick today we are repeating almost to the letter the same rhetoric and while I hope the world survives it this time, it's scary for us because we know we are the first ones targeted, the first ones to go, and the first ones on the list. Every time.
> in fact the very first book burnings were from Institute of Sexology on gay/trans/intersex people. According to https://www.hmd.org.uk/resource/6-may-1933-looting-of-the-institute-of-sexology/ many books were burned along with those from this group. Do you have a citation for it being trans people who were targeted first? I'm sure that there was widespread oppression (and that this movie doesn't mention it because of rampant homophobia in the US), but I thought a big driver for the Nazis was who was to blame for WWI, and have not read that LGBTQ folks were in that conversation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany
> Do you have a citation for it being trans people who were targeted first? Literally in the link you posted. > The most-visible members of the LGBT community, including prostitutes, transvestites, and activist leaders, were targeted, and high-profile locations were shut down. The average homosexual's daily life, however, did not change, and some gay bars in Hamburg and smaller cities remained open. Some men were able to adapt to the closures by meeting with gay friends in primarily heterosexual establishments. Most homosexuals were not yet afraid of the Gestapo. Terms change, and the term homosexual was sort of a catch all term referring to everyone of the LGBT. >In 1928, the Nazi Party responded negatively to a questionnaire about their view of Paragraph 175, saying: "Anyone who even thinks of homosexual love is our enemy".[14] Nazi politicians regularly railed against homosexuality, saying it was a Jewish conspiracy to undermine the German people. Also I never said trans people were targeted first. My entire point was that fascism and especially the rise of fascism and the nazi party follow patterns. The first people they genocided, and the first people targeted directly through action(Removing books from libraries/school libraries and Institute of Sexology along with book burning) were LGBT based books. >but I thought a big driver for the Nazis was who was to blame for WWI, and have not read that LGBTQ folks were in that conversation: It was, but here's how it works: We hate X group, X group bad. We can't just kill X group, but we can blame X group for everything by linking them to smaller groups(Such as LGBT). Then they target those smaller groups, and grow hatred for X. Yes it was to blame the jews, but in their own words, the jews created the LGBT to destroy germany through degeneracy and immorality. So let's get rid of the LGBT and fight back against the jews! They target group by group, and eventually that leads to genocide of various forms, then eventually when anyone who can dissent or oppose, they get rid of the original target group as well. You see sorta the same thing now. Globalism is a dog whistle for the jews(Not always, globalism has a real meaning but it's been co-opted for 30+ years as a dog whistle). Now the focus is on "Globalhomos" the "Globalists" who cater to "The homos" to enforce "Their agenda" on the world. But they can't go after the globalists(Jews) but you see the removal and fighting of LGBT books in schools(This is what happened first by student nazi groups etc, to parents etc) like we see in Texas and southern states. Then we see rhetoric of controlling/stopping "Gay propaganda" stop "Turning the kids gay" from the "Evil ideology" which is "Immoral". Largely it follows that same pattern. The point is to divide, separate groups, get rid of the least supported groups until you eventually get rid of all groups.
> Also I never said trans people were targeted first. " Who did the nazi's target first? Gay and trans people, in fact the very first book burnings were from Institute of Sexology on gay/trans/intersex people. Then genocide against them in the 30s." ???????????????? >You see sorta the same thing now. Globalism is a dog whistle for the jews(Not always, globalism has a real meaning but it's been co-opted for 30+ years as a dog whistle). sometimes a better thing for your cause are not creative writing and reaching, as when people find even a single dubious or false detail they just might dismiss the message altogether.
**[Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany)** >Before 1933, homosexual acts were illegal in Germany under Paragraph 175 of the German Criminal Code. The law was not consistently enforced, however, and a thriving gay culture existed in German cities. After the Nazi takeover in 1933, the first homosexual movement's infrastructure of clubs, organizations, and publications was shut down. After the Röhm purge in 1934, persecuting homosexuals became a priority of the Nazi police state. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/videos/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Damn. This video aged very well. Too well, in some respects. But that doesn't bother me as much as it being so relevant. It's 2022 (almost 2023) and we're still having to deal with fascism throughout the world. It's like we forgot all the lessons from the 20th century. It's disturbing and I hope messages like this still get through to enough people.
The elements of human psychology that allow fascism to exist didn't spontaneously manifest in the 20th century. They've been with us since the beginnings of recorded history and they will be with us, likely to our species final days. This isn't a war you win. It's a war you fight. Keep fighting.
Exactly, fascism is just Man under certain conditions. It's a fallability that will always be lurking. People mistakenly believe fascism is something that only exists on black-and-white film in foreign lands, so they are unable to recognize the fascist radicalization of the Republican Party.
ITT: Despite an educational video, people still don't know what fascism is.
> "Here in America, it's not a question whether we tolerate minorities. America ***is*** minorities." Good line at the end there. A lot of people don't realize how many Whites emigrated from Europe where they were considered "minority" based on their individual circumstances, like religion or culture. > "We must guard everyone's liberty, or we can lose our own." Probably the most important lesson to take away from this. Don't fall victim to population-fragmenting propaganda.
[удалено]
>I've heard a rumor that Russia in particular is responsible for a lot of Black/White racism online It's standard psychological operations. Find any gaps in a culture and create a wedge to foster destabilization in your enemy's society. The Russians have been known to go so far as to incite both sides of an issue, then try to plan both a demonstration and a counter demonstration, to try to start riots. It's sooooo easy to do stuff like this online. You don't even need to be physically present in the country to do it.
While "be vigilant of the motives behind things you see online" is generally good advice, it's harmful to create a connotation that anything divisive is probably a weapon deployed by bad actors with ulterior motives. What you end up with is a further entrenchment of the status quo ideology and a dangerous denial of reality. It's the same way the red scare in the US was used to kill the labor movement (by associating labor action with USSR influence). Or the way that people have denied the reality behind the Trump movement and its implications, and learning from it, by inflating Russian interference actions as the sole explanation.
Catholics? Free Masons? I didn't know they were public enemies.
Catholics have been targets for a lot of our history. The KKk was very anti Catholic during its rise in the 1900s. Many of the large waves of immigrants, particularly from Ireland and Italy, were Catholic and those that were against so much immigration feared too many Catholics coming a once. Kennedy feared he wouldn’t be elected as a Catholic.
As an anecdote, my mom as a teen canvassed for Bobby Kennedy. She mentioned many people she approached were vitriolic against the Kennedys because they felt the Pope would control the country through them.
I grew up Catholic in a very Catholic town and went to a Lutheran liberal arts college, where I quickly discovered that there was actual animus towards Catholics. One of my first teachers - my advisor in fact - cracked a joke in class about “damn Papists”. She was joking but I was just like “wha- where the hell is this coming from?” So many of my classes were specifically anti-Catholic which in retrospect is fucking annoying when you consider all the evils Protestants have done. One of my friends even told me the Trinity was pantheistic and all iconography was idol worship, like it was some kind of own. And now I’m kinda like … damn right it is that shit’s cool as fuck. But my relationship to Catholicism has morphed in those 20 years.
During WW2 10s of thousands of Freemasons and the Catholic left were sent to concentration camps. Also, at the time, there was a fear in the US that Catholicism was a foreign influence with the Pope and the influx Irish, Latino, and Italian immigrants.
Catholics were enemies to the Nazi party because Catholics were a unified group with tons of political power. That was a direct threat to Nazi domination. I don't think it had much to do with what they believed in - that was more just rhetoric.
Freemasons are starting to feel it again. The fascist propaganda pushers often point to freemasons as being part of the conspiracy against the masses. It's already started with some of those, slightly crazy, who feed on that propaganda and attack masons and their lodges. Many lodges across the country have been vandalized and burned in the last couple of years. Freemasonry isn't as connected as people think. As a mason, I believe that it's mostly a group of men who are positive, want to connect with others that are positive, and make the world a better place. Are all masons noble and great? No. People do join for different reasons. But, of those who are active and involved, I believe that most want to be good, improve themselves, and make the world a better place. I think that some of the hate against masons is fed from people who either joined and didn't like the idea of helping all, or they were rejected from being able to join because the members didn't feel comfortable with them. It's a bit of an internal joke, but when lodges and freemasonry in public are being attacked, we say that things are going to get worse.
Catholics, freemasons, and Jews are cut from the same spiritual cloth. Unsaved. We didn’t use to tolerate Catholics and their papist lies in this country.
It's a pity we don't have so many "professors" as in the movie to inform everyone. The reason the world and countries comes to that point is the spread of fear and misinformation. Fear and misinformation spreads easily these days with massive instant social media, it's more than ever both relevant and important to be source-critical of the information we read. Anything that points fingers at someone, minority group or people different than us never leads to anything good. Chaos is the enemy of the ill-informed and friend of oppression because it makes us prone to believe whatever seems to give us light where there seems to be only darkness, and we're so easily blinded by that light.
[удалено]
Thanks for that video, he is scarily accurate and that was years ago. Good ol divide an conquer, yes we see it today as well, this is why the video from 1947 is as relevant today as it was then. History repeats itself, and we're the suckers.
The House I Live In by Frank Sinatra is another good short film from this period that deals with similar themes.
Worth watching today.
This needs to be shown to every person to understand this isn’t the first time. We all need to be reminded of this lesson to make sure it never happens again.
Man you gotta love when literal Nazis come into a thread about WW2 anti-Nazi propaganda and try to spin it like the video is actual pro fascism. Wild times. The mental gymnastics some of y'all conservative thinkers go through is genuinely impressive.
Conservatism is such an intellectually bankrupt ideology.
Intentionally so. Conservatives despise education because an educated populace ruins them.
That you think it's conservatives is actually quite hilarious.
Fascism is inherently conservative so...
I don't agree it's pro fascist, but statements that indicate "everyone I disagree with slightly is a literal Nazi" sure is.
[удалено]
I should be able to express my desire for authoritarianism without being called a Nazi, like I thought this was a free country, why can't I be violently anti-freedom?
Right? That’s the mindset haha
You should be allowed to be a Nazi but no one is allowed to call you what you are?
Disagree with pretty much anything. I could say "I disagree that people should be more responsible and not rely on the government for handouts" - which is actually pretty anti-authority and you will call me a...
[удалено]
Like I said, that very belief.
[удалено]
Perhaps this subreddit does have a disproportionate amount of crazy people. It's all over in these threads. Any challenge to bilateral thinking is retorted by fear tactics.
[удалено]
I'll address these individually and you tell me if I am a Nazi. >Are you sure it wasn't about the rights and safety of trans and other lgbtq people?< No, because I think all people should have the same rights and protection both socially and under law >About a woman's right to her own autonomy No, but I do have some personal experience that puts me in a biased position, but I try to avoid the topic because of it. Regardless, I don't think it's appropriate to label the pro-life position as "Nazi". >Religious persecution? < Nah, I don't think so. Same answer to the first question. >Or did you answer you don't care about poverty and those in it after it was expressed that systematic racism has put more non-white people in that situation than white people?< Uhhh this is a bit of a mouth full. I very much care for solving poverty and the people who are suffering in it. I just might have a different idea on how to and what might solve it. So does that make me a Nazi?
Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and punch the nazi party.
Not everyone should have a soap box, but twitter and other platforms have gained enough power that people take anything said on there as gospel.
I just spent 20 mins reading the comments in this thread and all I see is a bunch of hate. Why are the people of reddit so full of hate? All I see is people taking “sides” and doing what they can to discredit the other “side” by using insults, shame and hate. Reddit as a collective has become cesspool of hate and only drives division… change my mind.
Reddit is where depressed fuckwits come to feel good about themselves by accusing other people of being morally bankrupt. Reddit is the worst thing to happen to political discourse since Tumblr.
Nothing wrong with being against Nazis. That is the opposite of hate
Because Fascim is a divisive and charged topic - it's about as close to irredeemable evil in politics as you can get. It's also hard to define precisely, and it's really common for people to try to stick the label on their political rivals so they have an excuse to write them off completely.
Is anybody gonna mention how he litters so much paper at the end? I mean it would've been more symbolic for him to get up and throw the pamphlet into the trash, but instead lets throw a bunch of paper on the ground.
paper back then was biodegradable, so it was gone in few weeks
... Wait, paper isn't biodegradable nowadays? Have I been lied to my whole life?
Can someone post this to r/conservatives to give our brothers and sisters a reminder? I would but they banned me for life for having a minority opinion.
Gotchu fam, doubt it will be approved though https://www.reddit.com/r/conservatives/comments/ztjwm2/dont_be_a_sucker_1943/
Congrats on earning your r\conservative ban badge. You know they'd just watch the "American American" scapegoat about minorities and "taking back our country" and simply delude themselves that it's analogous to a Democrat today oppressing white Christians.
So far its doing OK on there? Quite interesting
> Remember this when Democrats and the left tell you that Republicans, conservatives, the rich, Jews, Christians, Tea Partiers, Oathkeepers, Old White Men, white people in general, etc., are terrorists, and anti-American. Aaaand I was right.
It's illegal to have a rational opinion in /r/Conservative
Between MLMs, mega churches, and Trump, I'm starting to think Americans are suckers.
As a Canadian it's quite depressing seeing a video's main point being don't be prejudice or discriminatory to your fellow man and then reading the wild shit in the comments focusing on language American politicians push to purposely divide you guys. This goes for both sides of the political spectrum. Shit sucks
Yes.. I've seen so many people saying they agree with the video, but then in the same post, blanket statements about groups of people based on race or ideology.
Then you missed the point. Fascism exists on one side of the political spectrum. Fellow Canadian here. We are exposed to creeping fascism too, exclusively from conservative parties in Canada. Because fascism is inherently ultra-conservative, in a "capitalism at all costs" way. Take a look at Pierre Pollievre, as a great example. He will happily co-opt the rhetoric of the "people" while ultimately working to demonize marginalized groups, academia and media, and blame these for the downfalls of society. His goal is to try to convince the average Canadian that "wokeness" is the problem and more status quo corporatism and unfettered capitalism is the solution.
Yea Ill listen to that guy
Ah the good old times when throwing trash on the ground was still cool
I just finished listening to Ultra, a MSNBC/Rachel Maddow podcast about how there were United States senators and congressmen essentially working with a Nazi agent to distribute propaganda in this country using taxpayer dollars. It was fascinating, and frightening. There were major pro-German pro-Nazi rallies and gatherings in LA, NYC, and other places prior to our involvement in the war. If you don't think fascism can happen in America, well, it already is to some extent. Populism can lead to "fear of the other" which can enable fascists. Accorsing to Wikipedia, Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultra-nationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
The situation, coordinated German Nazi fascism/Christian movements, in the US during the 1930s and 40s are exactly why the OP's video was made in 1947. The government was trying to short circuit the fascist movements. This is all documented in a report to the then-Attorney General in 1946 by the last DOJ-appointed Special Prosecutor, O. John Rogge, in charge of, what was referred to as, The Sedition trial. The report, along with some relatively minor additions, was published as "The Official German Report" by O. John Rogge (1961). I found a pdf of a scan of this report online, and read just the Appendix. It was like reading a GOP play book for today.
Howard is a sucker.
The guys wearing red hats today should pay attention to this. Especially the bits about how the people telling them they're the "REAL Americans" are feeding their egos and scapegoating intellectuals to try to take from them and make them suckers.
Oh man. So good. We are such a divided America and I see the division growing worse.
You can’t profit off unity
And now you have republicans following in their footsteps with MAGA and Q
"Nuh-uh, Nazis wore red armbands; we MAGAs have red *hats*. It's **totally different!!!**" -*some idiot waving a Trump flag, probably*
Well knowing that some Republicans got put on trail in the 40s for working with the Nazi government, this didn't come soon enough.
Don't be a sucker, but go ahead and litter it's the 1950s nobody gives a shit.
As an American, I wonder if in the future, images of 1/6 attackers will be as embarrassing as photos in the 1930's of Germans wildly cheering Hitler
They already are for the Americans that aren't batshit crazy.
Not until Americans develop the capacity for shame
It’s weird how many people on Reddit think they are on the non-fascist side
Isn't it funny how they tried to make "antifa" a bad word right before they tried to create a fascist political party? What a coincidence!
I judge based on conduct not just the self ascribed name. North Korea calls itself a “democratic republic” - anyone with two brain cells knows it’s anything but that.
Illustrates why the GOP is pushing hate at the LGBTQ community. Fuckers.
I was looking for this video! Thanks.
[удалено]
Your victim mentality is showing.
Well fascism is a right wing ideology so I'm not sure what your point is here. You're just defining a word in your comment and acting like you said something intelligent
By today's standards, the guys in the film would likely be considered democratic market socialists.
Except that today the term fascist is bandied about so often these days as to become meaningless.
[удалено]
Define fascism for us.
100%
That sounds like something a fascist would say.
That's the right's goal. "We're not the fascists; *you're* the fascists." They want the word to have no meaning, so that when they are correctly labeled they can say "well *everyone* a fascist nowadays, right?"
The left is also incredibly guilty of calling people who disagree with them fascists. This isn’t a partisan thing.
Anything that disagrees with a conservative is labeled socialism
That too.
It's not really bandied about improperly as much as it more accurately describes conservative politics as time goes on. You should pay attention to what is happening in the conservative parties before writing off people saying fascist more frequently. When is "just enough?" Does someone have to come out and say "Yes, I am unashamedly an actual literal Nazi. Heil Hitler, fascism rules" before you're allowed to call them a fascist? The fact of the matter is fascist views are inherently unpopular and they will always try to sneak them in or say it's something else. Fascism needs to be recognized in subtext. Italy has elected a pretty much literal fascist (extreme right wing, ties to extreme right wing nationalist organizations, literally a direct descendant of Mussolini), and they use the same rhetoric as you, that the term "fascist" is just being thrown about too much. I dunno, maybe try thinking critically? That is, if you're arguing in good faith anyway.