Is it accurate?

Is it accurate?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=HsD4ba9944A
antifascistnews.net/2016/09/06/alt-light-or-alt-right-understanding-what-the-alt-right-really-is/
youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ
crimethinc.com/texts/selected/asfuck.php

...

...

This was meant to be the fourth pannel

It's accurate, but even your shopping skills are shit.

You could have at least put it into a single image

have I miss some recent event?

Holy shit learn how to make gifs

Yeah, Spongebob, go watch it, good shit.

Also Fascism =/ Not Socialism

although I have to give you a point, the 🍀🍀🍀alt-right🍀🍀🍀 is a retarded movement, like communism

:^)

Woops, post didn't upload the gif

...

What is it then?
USSR?
Mao's China?
Catalonia?
Cuba?

All the other communist places that failed?

This is why the alt-right exists

...

Do you just go out of your way to ignore the entirety of socialist theory because the real definition and theories don't match up with your narrative?
Damn right-SJWs, always feelings first facts later with you.

Hey it's not my fault anarchy inevitably leads to communism.

By the way I'm coming for your toothbrush bucko.

nice ideology

Yeah well you called communism a state so what do you know.

Yeah, no.
marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

The people who constantly say that the alt right isn't nazi are what's known as the "alt light"

The real alt right doesn't hide.

Watch here:

youtube.com/watch?v=HsD4ba9944A

antifascistnews.net/2016/09/06/alt-light-or-alt-right-understanding-what-the-alt-right-really-is/

I know the theoretical difference between Mussolini's fascism and Hitlers Not Socialism, but I don't see any practical differences, can some nadsee-kun explain?

The problem lies with the term alt-right. The alt-right is not one group, but a collection of groups. various communities that come together on one issue. They have no common history and communicate only indirectly. Some elements within the alt-right are 100% fascist, but most are completely opposed to it. They agree on very little, except that western civilization is worth saving.

So you're telling me socialism is a theory that's has never been tried, and all those communist government attempts with socialist policies (dictatorship of the proletariat, wealth redistribution, equality, market socialism) are no true socialism?

What I'm telling you is you need to stop ignoring the theories because they don't fit your narrative. For example dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean what you want it to mean, we do not wish for a distribution of overcoats though the shivering folk would find use in it, and equality is incidental.

Regardless of what one thinks of xexizy, this video is really just an info dump devoid of his personal opinions and knowledge or lack there of.

youtube.com/watch?v=zIddCEBCKHQ

It did.

Depends on who you ask honestly

I didn't call communism statist, I made fun of statists arguing who was to blame for Venezuela

Depending who you ask. People who are not marxists-leninists will argue ML states haven't been too socialist(and we are tackling the means of production part here)

Here's your gif. Courtesy of r/FULLCOMMUNISM. . .

I read the theor(ies) and what those governments (for example Marxist Leninism, later Stalinism, in the Soviet Union, Maoism, in Communist China or anarchist syndicalism, in Catalonia, just to give a few examples) tried was exactly that, socialism, different flavors, but they tried, not succeeded

I ask exactly that, all SOCIALISTS republics that failed, where they not socialism in practice?

Kill yourself you fucking subhuman

What, exactly, did you read? And yes, marxism has this weird ability to get hijacked by asshole porkies.


Why do those stuck up cunts make better webms than us?

Failed socialist republics are by definition not socialist, because socialism always works.

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Kekalonia was doing relatively well in terms of theory, they simply got cucked by outside forces, which is a bit different than selling out like ML states.

I don't think anyone has said that. Socialist movements that do not follow the essentials of socialism are by definition not socialist. But movements that get hijacked/subverted/outright destroyed are/were still socialist.

what are either of you getting at?

this 2bh

and yet Venezuela is still in better shape than it'd be with right wing leadership destroying any and all working class achievements made
they do have a socialist movement, but no, they have not achieved socialism and it's the parties leadership who's to blame for delaying any progress and holding back the peoples revolutionary force

spooky

the lack of action and development of a socialist society is by the way the result of this trotskyism

It depends on the definition. If only a state that is 100% socialist can call itself socialist, then no state is socialist.
If a state needs to be 1% socialist to call itself is socialist, then every state is socialist.

Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, etc. Most of the authors (and some that led the socialist revolution) that wrote about theory and practice of socialism, yeah those same theories, socialist governments attempted to apply


Catalonia was going to die either way, if it had gotten to big then a government would have been implemented, same cycle would have occurred to them, stayed the same size? some Hitler or Mussolini troops would have ravaged their territories, and the territory would have been given back to Franco, revolutionary Catalonia defense was far from being decent. No Hitler or Mussolini? The socialist would have betrayed the anarchists and genocide'd them.

No, I mean what books have you read. What are Kropotkin's views on luxury?

It seems to me that they are a perfect example of socialism in action

w o r k e r s
o w n
m e a n s
o f
p r o d u c t i o n

Was he the one that believed that people in a free communist society with enough basic needs for the majority of the population would ardently develop a need for achieving their individual abilities and talents with different sorts of luxuries(ranging from playing drums, to play in theaters)?

keep arguing an illusion, retards

The question is how much do the workers need to own before it can be classified a socialist country? There has never been a country that was 100% socialist.

Out of all of the different models of socialism only Marxism Leninism was implemented on a wide scale before, any other experiments (with the exception of Yugoslavia and Market Socialism) were crushed by outside forces within a few years of them coming into existence.

Fascism is a pretty lose term anyways.

Revolutionary Catalonia and the Ukrainian Free Territory.

Real socialism.

anyone have a smaller sized version of this so it's actually useful on the board it's responding too for fuck sake

It's interesting that academics have never been able to pin it down and achieve a consensus definition. It's a slippery thing by nature.

...

guide to being a marxist in 2016:

provide proof of these claims

Sorry I fell asleep.
Yes that's Kropotkin. So which books, exactly?

that picture irks me because of the Chen Duxiu and Korean Anarchist Federation part.

Chen got purged from leadership on behalf of the Comintern after the first United front between the KMT and CCP broke apart. Moscow tried to put the blame for the desaster on him to deflect from its own mistakes, since the whole alliance was a Comintern idea in the first place.
So there was never a Mao/Chen conflict, Maos early inner-party struggles were against the pro-Comintern stalinists who didn't like his focus on the peasantry. By the time Mao could even content for party leadership, Chen was already living in seclusion, penpalling with Trotsky and planning a new, trotskyist chinese communist party that never came about in his lifetime.

And About the KAF, that's nothing more than a anarchist meme until there's actually more historical evidence popping up. There's also no way the potrayal of "maoists fucked it up" can be true, since:
a) Mao wasn't the overall party leader in 1930 and was doing his thing in central China, organizing the first chinese soviet.
b) There were no chinese communist bases even close to the area that was supposed to be Shinmin, Manchuria was under complete control of the warlord Zhang Xueliang.

Yeah, I'm an anarchist and the KAF thing seems like wishful thinking with too little historical evidence. I think the book Black Flame talks about it, but that book is very sectarian and one of the co-authors is a neo-nazi so I wouldn't trust it so quickly.

meaning Free Territory secret police not Catalonia already knew ansyns a shit

I mean, I'd like it to be true and as a historian it'd be an interesting subject, but unless there's a ton of untranslated korean sources that prove its existence I'd not use it in arguments to defend the viability of anarchism, since right now it can be easily debunked and makes you look like an idiot for using it as an example.

When has the "alt-right" denied being fascist? Whoever the alt-right is supposed to be, anyway.

I know Holla Forums openly shills for fascism.

source pls

There is some overlap, but they are not equal. I've often seen Holla Forumslacks call alt-right kike-right since alt-righters are simply edgy republicans who do not want Nazi masturbation fantasy while self proclaimed alt-righters denounce Holla Forumslacks as batshit LARPers. both are correct
Just look at that flaming faggot Milo, Holla Forumslacks really, really hate him.

[Citation Needed]

ALL of the means of production.
That may sound a little abstruse, but it's more a matter of "non-worker ownership" of the productive forces vanishing. For instance if nobody is able to exploit the labor of others due to new material conditions then "non-worker" ceases to be well-defined. By and large socialism is synonymous with liquidation of the bourgeoisie.
There is no sliding scale of proletarian ownership.

Yep.

That's why Holla Forums hates the alt-right. It's double think like communism.

:^)

Point at him and laugh.

Because frankly removing the concept of private property is not only stupid, it's impossible.

(Proof of this theorem has been left as an exercise for the reader.)

...

>crimethinc.com/texts/selected/asfuck.php
Is "post" code for "not"?

wtf I hate Asser now

Cause you don't bother to learn photoshop. or theory, for that matter

ha ha, fuckin nerd

Oh shit how do I erase those anarchist books from my memory then? Since they don't exist, the knowledge retained must be some sort of delusion.

...

who is the long mustached fellow three from the left bottom row?

...

...

FYI: Literally every single fucking post made from Venezuela or Colombia on Holla Forums is from a CIA operative who speaks perfect English and uses American phraseology. Just a coincidence, of course.

only 3 of these guys have good theory.
the rest is trash

Fascism is not racist, Not Socialism is. Minorities are not persecuted under Fascism for being minorities.

Please stop lumping them together to the point you confuse the two.

Wo.rd Fil.ter. How cool.
Fascism is not racist, Na.tio.nal Socialism is. Minorities are not persecuted under Fascism for being minorities.
Please stop lumping them together to the point you confuse the two.

Slovenes beg to disagree

No one's fooled by your revisionism fag

This
I've never been able to respond to the retarded version because of this.

Look here spook, I am a Nazi white supremacist. I think all non-whites should be exterminated for lebensraum. I am just tired of people calling us fascists. There was a fascist dictator in my country for decades, and there are still plenty of gypsies, jews and muslims from that era, as well as their descendants. By your (lack of) logic they should not exist. And his regime filled a large amount of mass graves, mostly fellow whites from different political persuasion or just disliked by someone in power, so it's not like they where shy about killing people.

Who cares?

It ensures discrimination of 99%. Even racism would've been an improvement.

What the fuck should this even mean?

He's right, look up fascism in South America and you'll see crowds of different races in blackshirts. I imagine the common mix up is peddled by liberal democracy to hinder fascists.

If members of a minority group are criminals, they (the individuals) won't avoid prosecution for being part of a minority.

You know, like it happens with rapefugees in Europe. Or howle happy merchant meem's Chosen will deflect criticism aimed at the actions of an individual as anti-semitism.

G.-.od's Chosen

tl;dr
The only one spooked here is you faggot

Bullshit.

There is a minority of ruling class that is above persecution for any crimes, except those against other members of ruling class.

Nope.

You mean, like Holla Forums defends Capitalism - aka sin of usury, the defining feature of Judaism, since it was illegal for Christians in Europe to do it - by screaming and whining about JEWISH COMMUNISM?

Fuck off.

Consider the debate pyramid. You are at the bottom.

My bad. RACIAL minority, should have stated that and not relied on CONTEXT.

Pic related.

We don't! Defend capitalism, that is. We dislike both.
See second picture, the quote was extracted from Hitler's Table Talk, great book. There are a few interesting paragraphs there, I will see if I can find them and some more on the topic for you, we had a thread on Nazi economics a few days ago.

...

What said.


Text moves too fast to read properly.

Say what you want about right wingers and Holla Forums, but they sure as hell got you lefties beat in meme warfare.

Quoted from 24th March 1942, at dinner. (Protection of private property—
Limits of private ownership—The rights of the State—The
ethics of lotteries and gambling—Industrial power monopolies—Capitalist interests.) Skipped two unrelated sections.

I absolutely insist on protecting private property.
It is natural and salutary that the individual should be inspired by the wish to devote a part of the income from his work
to building up and expanding a family estate. Suppose the
estate consists of a factory. I regard it as axiomatic, in the
ordinary way, that this factory will be better run by one of the
members of the family than it would be by a State functionaryproviding,
of course, that the family remains healthy. In this
sense, we must encourage private initiative.
On the other hand, I'm distinctly opposed to property in the
form of anonymous participation in societies of shareholders.
This sort of shareholder produces no other effort but that of
investing his money, and thus he becomes the chief beneficiary
of other people's effort : the workers' zest for their job, the ideas
of an engineer of genius, the skill of an experienced administrator.
It's enough for this capitalist to entrust his money to a
few well-run firms, and he's betting on a certainty. The
dividends he draws are so high that they can compensate for
any loss that one of these firms might perhaps cause him. I
have therefore always been opposed to incomes that are purely
speculative and entail no effort on the part of those who live on
them.
Such gains belong by right to the nation, which alone can
draw a legitimate profit from them. In this way, at least, those
who create these profits—the engineers and workers—are entitled
to be the beneficiaries. In my view, joint-stock companies
should pass in their entirety under the control of the State.
There's nothing to prevent the latter from replacing these shares
that bring in a variable interest by debentures which it guarantees
and which produce a fixed interest, in a manner useful to
private people who wish to invest their savings. I see no better
method of suppressing the immoral form of income, based only
on speculation, of which England to-day provides the most
perfect example.
This attitude towards stocks and shares entails, by way of
compensation on our part, the obligation to maintain the value
of money, no matter what happens, and to prevent any boom
in products of prime necessity.
A man who, within the framework of such an organisation,
consented to pay a thousand marks for a Persian rug that's
worth only eight hundred, would prove that he's an imbecile,
but there's no way of stopping him.

In the same way, one can't
stop a gambler from losing his money at gambling, or from
taking his own life when he has lost his money. One might
relevantly wonder whether the State, which is the main beneficiary
of gambling, should not make itself responsible for the
cost of the suicide's funeral ! We should bear in mind, in fact,
that more than half of the profits of gambling—whether
lotteries or games of chance played in the casinos—goes into
the coffers of the State.
In addition to the material profit the State derives from them,
I think I can say that, from a purely philosophic point of view,
lotteries have their good side. Tangible realities are not enough
to ensure men's happiness. It's not a bad idea to keep alive in
them the taste for illusions, and most of them live on hopes
which to a great extent cannot become reality. It seems to me,
therefore, that the best part of a lottery is not the list immediately
proclaiming the winners. On the contrary, the results
should be dragged out, for a year if possible—a year in which
the gambler has leisure to nourish his illusions and forge his
dreams of happiness. The Austrian State knew about this, and
used the system very intelligently. This explains why, even in
the most difficult times, there were always so many happy
people in that country.
The origin of the lottery goes back doubtless to the beginning
of the eighteenth century, when an astute minister wondered
why the profits of gambling should not go into the State's
coffers instead of going to swell private purses. When the State
uses the money it wins thus for some good purpose—to build
hospitals, for example—the affair takes on a colouring of
idealism. Gambling first of all sustains the gambler's hopes.
When chance has given its verdict, and if the gambler is thereafter
comparable to a man who has made an unlucky bet, he
still has a consolation, that of having contributed to a good work.
I studied the question of gambling, as regards Wiesbaden,
with Gauleiter Wagner. What gives the lottery its pleasant
character is not to be found, unfortunately, in roulette and other
games of chance played in the casinos. But if we'd withdrawn
the authorisation for gambling at Wiesbaden, that would have
done a considerable wrong to that thermal resort without any
profit to the inveterate gamblers, whom this measure would
obviously not have amended. They'd simply have gone and
gambled somewhere else, on the other side of the frontier—to
the profit, that's to say, of the French. Speaking of that, I
enquired how much foreign currency the gambling at Wiesbaden
might bring us in, and I told myself that even a hundred
thousand marks in foreign money (it's not much, when one has
it) is quite a sum when one is poor. I drew the conclusion from
all this that gamblers can be useful to the State, by losing their
money—and especially foreign gamblers, when they lose in
their own currency.

Experience proved that, in retaining gambling in a few
casinos, we made a sound calculation. In addition to the
foreign currencies we thus collected, it enabled us to retain
resorts like Wiesbaden for the German community. It goes
without saying that the institution of gambling, which produces
great profits simply because it's a monopoly and because it entails
no payment of labour in exchange, must go to enrich the
State and not private people.
Bormann commented that this principle should be equally true as
regards industrial power production. Hitler went on:
It's obvious that the power monopoly must be vested in
the State. That does not exclude the participation of private
capital. The State would offer its securities for investment by
the public, which would thus be interested in the exploitation
of the monopoly, or, rather, in the favourable progress of State
business. The fact is that, when State affairs are not prospering,
the holders of certificates can put a cross through their unearned
incomes—for the various affairs in which the State is
interested cannot be dissociated. The advantage of our formula
would be to enable everyone to feel closely linked with State
affairs. To-day, unfortunately, most people are not clearsighted
enough to realise the closeness of this link.
What is true of the power industry is equally true of all the
essential primary materials—that is to say, it applies also to
petroleum, coal, steel and water-power. Capitalist interests
will have to be excluded from this sort of business. We do not,
of course, contemplate preventing a private person from using
the energy of the tiny stream that powers his small works.

Here's a typical fact, and one that proves the dishonesty of
the commercial procedures to which the joint-stock companies
resort. It's the case of the former Bavarian Minister Schweyer,
who owed his Ministerial appointment only to his remarkable
imbecility—and on that everyone was unanimous ! He received
from Bavaria Electricity, of which he was chairman, a yearly
pension of thirty-eight thousand marks. Despite all the legal
obstacles, I managed to have this pension suppressed, since this
man had not supplied any services to an equivalent value—far
from it ! The present law allows the Chancellor of the Reich a
pension of thirty-four thousand marks, and this comparison
enables one to realise the scandalous enormity of muh privileges like
Schweyer's.

The problem of monopolies handed over to capitalist interests
interested me even in my boyhood. I'd been struck by
the example of the Danube Shipping Company, which received
an annual subsidy of four millions, a quarter of which
was at once shared out amongst its twelve directors. Each of
the big parties was represented in this august college by at least
two of its members, each of them pocketing about eighty million
kronen yearly! One may feel sure that these mandarins saw
to it that the comrades voted punctually for the renewal of the
subsidy! But the Socialists were acquiring more and more importance,
and it happened that none of their lot was on the
board. That's why the scandal broke. The Company was
attacked in the Parliament and in the press. Threatened with
being deprived of the subsidy, it replied by abolishing the
passenger-service. And since the politicians on the board
had already taken care that no railway should be built along
the Danube, the riverside populations were the chief victims
of these arbitrary measures. A solution of the conflict was
found quite rapidly—and you can imagine which! Quite
simply, the number of members of the board was increased
to fourteen, and the two new seats were offered
to two well-known Socialists—who hastened to accept
them.
What makes England so fragile is that her whole economic
system is founded on similar practices.
From the moment of our seizure of power, having my own
set ideas on the subject, I took the precaution of forbidding
every director of a company to be a member of the Reichstag.
Since men who have interests in a private company cannot be
objective on a great number of questions, I likewise forbade
office-holders in the Party to take part in business of a capitalist
complexion. The same prohibition applies, by the way, to all
servants of the State. I therefore cannot allow an official,
whether he belongs to the Army or to the civil administration, to
invest his savings in industry, except in companies controlled
by the State.

I hate this image with a fury.

You could add the Scandinavian countries to this list with no problem, if your definition of socialism is this vague.

As I've said: racism would've been an improvement.

Discrimination against majority is not somehow better than discrimination against minority.

Pic related is bullshit on several levels. Not only it is not Syrian refugees, the premise is flawed: there is no "positive discrimination". Not only West had denied them their homeland, it also treats them like prisoners in EU, segregating them into camps, effectively enforcing Sharia on them.

The fuck you do. Destruction of Capitalism is only possible via replacement of it with another system. Not only Fascists did not attempt anything of the like, they destroyed anyone who tried to challenge Capitalism. Fascists has been the most fervent defenders of Capitalism throughout history.

There first question question that should be asked is "did the workers own means of production?" Everything else is irrelevant if the answer is No.

And the book itself is just propaganda. Moreover, not only it is propaganda, it is Intellectual Property of Hitler. I.e. his Capital through which he earned money. What kind of mental gymnastics allows to ignore this fact?

He didn't force State to buy it en masse and pay him royalties for it (like he did with Mein Kampf), did he?

Remember these conversations were private affairs of Hitler with his managers, so to speak, not speeches for the public.

Ah. So that's why it wasn't mentioned. It was not actually Hitler's book.

Most "refugees" are not even Syrian. There even was talk of Moroccan refugees. They are economic migrants and draft dodgers, with the ocasional woman or child sprinkled in.

Capitalism as in businessmen leeching of the workers, of course. Effort must be rewarded as long as it benefits the people. If there is no incentive to work, there will be little work done.


Because dictation or translation magically divest a work of legitimacy or meaning, right?

Mein Kampf was also dictated, by the way.

hue

Try again.

No its hilariously wrong.

Fascism is just a form of economy where a large left wing government colludes with corporations.

The Chinese operate that system at the moment.
Arguably most of the world does.

I made a post to clarify that I was wrong about book. It wasn't part of Hitler's Capital - indisputable proof of his hypocrisy; that "honour" belongs to Mein Kampf - because it wasn't his property in the first place.

And it's the fact that nothing anti-Capitalist was implemented that divests a work of legitimacy.

Irrelevant. The problem of being segregated into Islamic ghettoes still applies. There is no "positive discrimination".

Who cares about "businessmen"? The question is about private property ownership and the abuse of rights it allows for.

I repeat example of Hitler himself. His "effort" of Mein Kampf got clearly over-rewarded thousand times above and beyond any reasonable estimates - due to his own intervention.

Try harder.

How is that discrimination against anything else than criminals (which is rightful). Or are you arguing the majority are criminals, and thus should get impunity?


Intellectual property (labor) is a different best from material property (labor). It does not get consumed, it can be infinitely replicated, and it is scarcer.

It is also the result of a lifetime of learning and thinking.

Anybody can be instructed in how to make a brick. Just a few can figure out how to best run a country, for the benefit of all it righteous citizens.

Besides, nobody was forced to buy a copy of Mein Kampf. It became customary to gift a copy to newlyweds, but at that point if Hitler wanted the money he could just print it.

You brought it up!

They segregate themselves. It happens in every country, every city they migrate legally to.


Never mind your nebulous concept of "West", according to which Europeans are somehow responsible for the actions of the North American Military-Industrial Complex.

I have already stated, and you have not denied, that most are not even Syrian! Their countries are not at war! They are, by and large, military age men, some deserters and criminals escaping punishment in their countries.

Why would actual Syrians need to seek refuge in Europe, instead of other Muslim countries? Or Asia, or Africa. Why Europe? What aim does it serve?


Because you say so, right?

As a matter of fact, Nazi Germany did take measures to achieve that. It was unfortunate that the war put a stop to many of them, and of course critical infrastructure and defense must be controlled by the government.

The farmland was dived up between the farm workers, and made hereditary. It could not be sold or traded – attempts to do so would result in forfeiture.
(See Blood and Soil by Anna Bramwell)

They opposed big box stores selling cheap, mostly imported goods, and promoted small family owned business, artisans.

Prices and wages were regulated, working conditions improved.


The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying. Gradually I began to hate them.

Who cares about those whose only contribution to production is providing seed capital taking most of the profits?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of these concepts

fuck off. I'd expect Holla Forums to at least understand the difference between ideologies.

No one cares

Also, you filthy leftists.

The google dictionary definition of fascism is bullshit.

The real definition of fascism is in one word. Struggle. The whole ideology itself is based on the belief that struggle and the constant endless state of conflict is the base for progress and greatness.

While you lefties want to abolish class struggles, we fascists want the exact opposite. The more "struggle" and conflict there is the better.

This, a thousand times this

Awful meme put it in one picture and not "know your meme" fonts.

...

You're going to struggle a lot when I conflict my fist with your face.

You mean never?