
Chinese: 
大家好，我是Nathan Rich, AKA火锅大王
今天，我想谈谈一个非常奇怪的想法，就是有时我会听到说
中国是一个“法西斯国家”
如果你最近在关注我的视频，你应该看过我制作的一个
关于Sargon of Akkad的视频
在视频里我提到了一件很奇怪的事情，那就是
Sargon似乎也加入了称中国为“法西斯”的行列
在我的评论区里有很多人说“是的，这绝对是个法西斯国家”
我觉得很奇怪
这些人要么故意装作不知道法西斯主义是什么
要么就是想用他们能想到的
最具煽动性的词来形容
但我认为，法西斯主义实际上与中国的基本原则
完全不符
通常在西方，特别是在我的家乡美国，用美国的通用语言来说

English: 
Hello Everyone; I'm Nathan Rich, AKA, Hotpot King.
Today, I want to talk about this very strange idea that I hear sometimes that
China is a "fascist country.
" If you've been following my videos recently, you've seen one that I made
about Sargon of Akkad.
And in there I mentioned something very strange, which is that Sargon has sort
of jumped on this bandwagon of other people who call China "fascist." And I
get a lot of arguments in my comments section of people who say, "Yes, it's
definitely a fascist country." Which seems very weird to me.
It's almost like all these people either intentionally are pretending that
they don't understand what fascism is or they're just trying to use the most
inflammatory word they can think of.
The way I see it, though, is that fascism is actually quite incompatible with
China's basic principles.
Normally in the West, especially in America, where I'm from, in spoken common

Chinese: 
只要有人非常严格，你就可以称他们为“法西斯分子”
或“纳粹分子”，例如，你可以说某人是语法纳粹
或者你可以说“她是法西斯分子，因为她对驾驶规则很严格”
诸如此类
但这定义不是我所感兴趣的
因为那只是一个轻松的会话词
我感兴趣的是法西斯主义—真正的政府
法西斯主义的理论是什么?
让我们来谈谈政治结构
如果我们能够模拟一群人突然出现在某个岛上并观察他们
他们开始存在的那一刻，那将是无政府状态
没有人会掌管任何事情，每个人都会觉得自己
拥有终极权利
但是一旦我们看到一个人想要对另一个人
做一些会侵犯他权利的事情，例如，杀死一个人
那么我们就会看到一个等级制度
所以无政府状态非常不稳定
事实上，它只能维持很短时间

English: 
language in the United States, any time somebody is very strict you can call
them "fascist" or a "Nazi." For example, you can say somebody is a grammar
Nazi or you can say that "She's a fascist because she really is strict about
driving rules," or something like that.
But that's not the definition that I'm interested in, because that's just a
light conversational word.
What I'm interested in is fascism - the actual government.
What is the theory of fascism?
Let's talk a little bit about political structure.
If we were able to simulate a bunch of people suddenly existing on some
island and observed them, the moment that they began existing, that would be
anarchy. Nobody would be in charge of anything and everyone would feel that
they have ultimate rights.
But as soon as we see one person try to do something to another that would
infringe on that other person's rights, for example, kill somebody, then
we'll start to see a hierarchy form.
So anarchy is very unstable.
In fact, it can only really last in a frozen moment.

Chinese: 
一旦有事情开始改变，无政府状态就开始发展成一个
等级制度结构
所以一些基本的等级制度就是这样的，例如，威权主义
通常由一个人掌管群里的其余成员
有趣的是，仅仅因为某样东西是威权统治
并不意味着它没有民主的
以这个模拟为例
假设岛上有10个人，他们都说
“嘿，我们需要某种政府
为什么我们不都选Nathan？
Nathan你来管理
你管理整个岛
每个人都要按你说的做
我们将来不会投票
只是你说了算”，这是一个威权式规则
民主地建立起来
现在，这是很多人很难理解的
仅仅因为某些东西目前没有坚持普选
并不意味着它不是民主建立的
因为在那个时候没有政府，没有投票的方式，什么都没有

English: 
As soon as anything starts to change, that anarchy starts to develop into a
hierarchical structure.
So some basic hierarchies would be, for example, authoritarianism, where
somebody is generally in charge of the rest of the group.
Now, it's interesting to note that just because something is an authoritarian
rule doesn't mean that it wasn't put there democratically.
So let's take this simulation as an example.
Let's say that there were ten people on this island and all ten said, "Hey,
we need some kind of government.
Why don't we all choose Nathan?
Nathan, you're in charge.
You're in charge of the whole island.
Everybody needs to do what you say.
And we don't get a vote in the future.
It's just whatever you say goes." Well, that's an authoritarian style rule
that was democratically established.
Now, this is something that a lot of people have a really hard time
understanding. Just because something isn't currently adhering to universal
suffrage doesn't mean that it wasn't democratically established, because at
the time that there is no government, there's no way to vote, there's nothing

English: 
in place. And so the only way to really vote is to have combat or to have
discussions or to just some way or another agree on a quorum and to make a
popular change.
And so if the popular change is, "Hey, this guy is in charge," that's an
authoritarian government put into place by democratic means.
So that's one example of something that could happen from the momentary state
of anarchy. Authoritarianism is like most families, I think in the world.
You have at the top of this hierarchy might be someone's grandparents or their
mother, their father usually.
The rest of the family will have a tendency of following that direction.
And that person or persons may have the ultimate authority of, for example,
that family. This is also how most places of work are set up.
The boss is the person in charge.
It's usually an authoritarian setup.
There's not really such a thing as a democratic workplace for the most part,
because generally speaking, the people at work doing various jobs don't have
any concept of what's good for the overall company.
Authoritarianism is a very vanilla term.

Chinese: 
所以真正投票的唯一方式，是进行战斗或进行讨论
或以某种方式在法定人数上达成一致
并做出大众化改变
如果大众化的改变是，“嘿，这个家伙在掌权”
这是一个威权政府通过民主的方式建立起来的
这是无政府状态下可能发生的一个例子
我认为，威权主义和世界上大多数家庭一样
在这个等级体系中处于顶端的可能是某人的祖父母或母亲
通常是他们的父亲
其余的家庭成员将倾向于遵循这个方向
例如在一个家庭，当家的人可能拥有最终权力
这也是大多数工作场所的设置方式
老板是负责人
通常是一种威权主义的形式
大多数情况下并没有民主的工作场所
因为一般来说，从事各种工作的人
对什么有利于整个公司没有任何概念
威权主义是一个非常普通的术语

English: 
It's not really tied to a particular ideology other than "somebody should be
in charge, not generally the people and not nobody." There should be somebody
or some people who are wielding authority over others.
Within one country, you can also have a totalitarian rule, which would be
essentially that rather than simply having a source of authority, you would
actively try to permeate that authority through all avenues of life within
that country.
Where things start to split off historically with the actual manifestations of
these types of governments that have happened here on Earth is mostly split
along a few major lines.
And there's a big difference between communism and fascism, including Nazism
and other types of more vanilla fascism.
And it kind of comes down to this.
What people consider themselves to be in the center is libertarian.
And libertarian is "We care the most about the individual and their rights.

Chinese: 
它并不是真的与一种特定的意识形态联系在一起
除了“应该有人掌权，而不是一般的人民或任何人”
应该有人或一些人对其他人行使权力
在一个国家里，你也可以有极权统治
这本质上不是简单地拥有权力的来源
而是你会积极地尝试将这种权力渗透到这个国家生活的
各个方面
从历史上看事情分裂
这些类型的政府在地球上的实际表现
主要是沿着几条主线分裂的
共产主义和法西斯主义有很大的区别，这个法西斯主义
包括纳粹主义和其他更普通类型的法西斯主义
归根结底就是以上这样
人们认为自己处于中心地位的是自由主义者
自由主义者是“我们最关心个人和他们的权利”

Chinese: 
而它，就像任何其他政治制度一样，永远无法真正体现出来
你不能给每个人完全的权利
因为完全的权利意味着你有权利去侵犯别人的权利
所以这是矛盾的，这说不通
但你绝对可以朝那个方向推进
这是中间派的观点，认为个人才是关键
所以无政府主义和自由主义，主要集中在个人身上
当你走上威权主义道路时，你的注意力更多地集中在群体身上
所以共产主义会更加关注群体，法西斯主义会更加关注群体
所以，到目前为止，听起来它们几乎是一回事
如果你还没有仔细考虑过这些
但是你只是跟随主流的仇恨思想，因为你很容易受影响
你没有实际的原则或情操去寻求真理
那么很容易把所有这些混为一谈，然后说

English: 
" And it, just like any other political system, can never truly be manifested.
You can never grant full rights to every individual because full rights means
your right to infringe on other people's rights.
So it's paradoxical; it doesn't really make sense.
But you can definitely push in that direction.
That's the sort of centrist view on things, is that the individual is key.
So with anarchism and liberalism, the focus is primarily on the individual.
As you go up the channels of authoritarianism, focus is more to the group.
So communism will focus more on groups, fascism will focus more on groups.
And so, so far, it sounds like they're almost exactly the same thing.
If you haven't actually thought this through, but you're kind of just going
along with the mainstream message of hate, because you're weak and you have
no actual principles or integrity to do real truth seeking, then it's very
easy to just conflate all these together and say, "Well, X country bad,

English: 
therefore X country fascist.
X country Nazi.
Every other bad thing that you can think of.
" But actually there are huge fundamental differences between these two paths.
Let's forget the whole left and right thing because that can just cloud the
issue. A lot of that has to do with the size of government and the sort of
attitude towards social policies.
Forget all that. What is the fundamental difference between communism and
fascism? We know that liberalism and centrism and anarchism focuses on the
individual, and we know that communism and fascism both focus on the groups.
But what is the difference?
It's huge.
In the center they're pushing for something called "unenforced inequality,"
meaning the people in these states will definitely end up creating
inequality. But the system itself is not forcing those inequalities.
It's passively forcing them.
It's an unenforced inequality.

Chinese: 
“X国很坏，因此X国是法西斯
X国纳粹
所有这些你能想到的坏事”
但实际上，这两条路线之间存在着巨大的根本差异
让我们忘掉左和右的事吧，因为这会使问题变得模糊
这在很大程度上与政府的规模
和对社会政策的态度有关
忘了那些吧，共产主义和法西斯主义的根本区别是什么？
我们知道自由主义，中心主义和无政府主义注重个人
我们知道共产主义和法西斯主义，都注重群体
但是有什么区别呢？
区别大了
在中心，他们正在推动一种叫做“非强制性的不平等”的东西
意思是这些状态下的人最终肯定会创造不平等
但体制本身并没有造成这些不平等
这是被动地强迫他们
这是一种非强制性的不平等

Chinese: 
换言之，如果你把一群人放在这个模拟中
你把他们扔到一个岛上，肯定会形成等级制度
会有不平等，尽管从技术上讲，你不是要强迫它发生
你只是顺着事物的自然顺序来建立那些层次结构
所以这就是中心
在某种程度上，你是在向“强制性平等”迈进
换句话说，你有点违背自然
你想要创造平等，否则就不可能有平等
这意味着你把一些人推下去，把一些人扶起来
你最终会得到一个更加平等的社会
通过帮助需要帮助的人，阻止一些很超前的人来实现
好吧，那就是社会主义
共产主义基本上就是社会主义的最终，每个人是平等的
当然，这些政府都不可能完全实现
因为这些没有绝对的状态
但这就是他们推进的方向

English: 
So in other words, if you take a bunch of people in this simulation, you dump
them on an island, definitely hierarchies will form and there will be
inequality, although technically speaking, you're not forcing that to happen.
You're just allowing the natural order of things to establish those
hierarchies. So that's the center.
To the degree that you're on the left, you're pushing more towards an
"enforced equality." In other words, you're kind of going against nature and
you're trying to create equality where otherwise there may not be equality.
And that means you're pushing some people down and you're lifting some people
up and you're ending up with a more equal society by helping people who
you've deemed need it, and by stopping some people from getting so far ahead
of the others. OK, that's socialism.
And communism is basically the extreme of that - everyone is exactly the
same. Now, of course, none of these governments can ever fully be realized
because there is no such thing as an absolute state of these things.
But that's the direction that they're pushing in.

English: 
The more communistic a place is the more the core values is that everyone
should be exactly the same - for better or for worse.
But if you look at the right wing and the fascist chain, it's a totally
different concept. They do not believe that at all.
What they believe in is "enforced inequality." What the right will tend to
push for is groups, sure, but unequal groups.
This is why...
you can argue there's racists all over the place
but in the normal mainstream concept of what racism is in the West, you tend
to find those clusters on the right.
Because they're already in this mindset of superiorism.
America is number one.
America is better than other countries.
This is the basic tenets of all the fascism.
It's the basic concept of "We are the elite ones and we are better than
others." And that's also why imperialism is on the right and aggressive

Chinese: 
一个地方的共产主义程度越高，其核心价值
就越应该是人人平等，无论好坏
但是，如果您看一下右翼和法西斯分子
那是完全不同的概念，他们根本不相信这些
他们信奉的是“强制性不平等”
右翼倾向于推动的是群体，当然，是不平等的群体
这就是为什么…
你可以说到处都是种族主义者
但在西方关于种族主义的主流概念中
你往往会在右翼找到这些群体
因为他们已经处于这种优越感中
美国第一
美国比其他国家好
这是所有法西斯主义的基本原则
这是“我们是精英，我们比别人强”的基本理念
这也是为什么帝国主义是右翼

Chinese: 
侵略性的扩张主义也是右翼
你正在建立价值圈，将人们分配到这些价值圈中
这就是为什么纳粹主义被认为是右翼的原因
因为在纳粹德国，如果你是某个种族的纳粹分子，生活很美好
但如果你属于不同种族或不同地位，那你就处于较低级别
这不是偶然的情况
你在这个阶梯上的位置越低，政府对待你就越差
越特别地、直接地、有意地把你当作整个体系哲学
和核心价值的一部分来对待
现在，我们再回到共产主义
共产主义不会这么做
核心原则并不是说它应该去寻找大量的人群
以一种永久的方式将他们分开
并在整个社会中创造出多个阶层
其实，恰恰相反
当然，人们的做法大不相同
红色高棉和苏联非常不同

English: 
expansionism is also on the right.
You're establishing spheres of value, assigning people into those spheres.
This is exactly why Naziism is considered to be on the right.
Because in Nazi Germany, life was great if you're a Nazi of a certain race.
But if you're of a different race or a different status, then you're in this
lower level. It's not an accidental situation.
The lower you are on this ladder, the worse that you're treated by the
government specifically, directly, intentionally as part of the entire
philosophy and core values of the system.
Now, let's go back to communism again.
Communism doesn't trying to do that.
In the core tenants is not that it should be going and finding the large
groups of people, separating them out in a permanent way and creating
multiple classes throughout the society.
In fact, is the total opposite.
Of course, people practice it very different.
The Khmer Rouge is very different than the USSR is very different than...

English: 
You know, there's all these different implementations, but the ideology is
that of molding people together into one group, whereas the right wing
fascist ideologies is to take one group and to separate it into multiple
groups. It's just...
it's not compatible.
This is one of the big reasons that the number one destroyer of fascism in
the entire world ever, has been communism.
If you look back at who killed all those Nazis, those were communists.
And the reason for that is their ideologies are not even compatible at all.
So why do people call countries "fascist" when they're not fascists?
It's both because in a common language, you can say anything is a fascist
that you don't like or you think it's authoritarian or you think it's strict
or it did something that you disagree with.
But also because it's a very sneaky way to fool people who haven't thought
about this clearly into thinking, "Oh, yeah, I guess it really is a fascist
country." No, it's not.
We have words and words have meanings.

Chinese: 
你知道，有所有这些不同的实施方式
但是意识形态是把人塑造成一个群体
而右翼法西斯的意识形态是把一个群体分成多个群体
只是…
它不兼容
这就是为什么共产主义是有史以来消灭法西斯主义的
世界头号毁灭者的重要原因之一
如果你回头看看是谁杀了所有的纳粹分子，那是共产主义者
原因是他们的意识形态根本不兼容
那么为什么人们称那些不是法西斯的国家为“法西斯”呢?
因为在一种通用语言中，你可以说你不喜欢的东西是法西斯
或者你认为它是威权的，或者你认为它是严格的
或者它做了你不同意的事情
但也因这是一种很狡猾的方式，用来愚弄那些没认真思考的人
让他们认为，“噢，是的，我想这真是一个法西斯国家”
不,它不是
我们有文字，文字也有意义

Chinese: 
不管怎样，有很多这样的事情很容易被揭穿
如果你们想让我做更多这些视频，请告诉我，我会尽我所能
谢谢大家，谢谢！

English: 
Anyway, there's so many things like this that are just easy to debunk.
If you guys want me to do more of these, let me know and I will do my best.
Thanks, everybody. Xiexie.
