Subscribe now to get the latest news on guns, gear, gun rights, and personal defense delivered straight to your inbox daily!

Required fields are bold...

Email Address:
First Name:
Zip Code:

General Petrus J.M. “Peter” van Uhm is A Proto-Fascist


Unaccustomed as I am to scraping content from, I reckon this YouTube video is a must-see for people who believe that the modern military is a bulwark against tyranny. At 10:35, General Petrus J.M. “Peter” van Uhm credits the “introduction, on a large scale, of the state monopoly on the legitimized use of violence, legitimized by a democratically elected government” as a major contributor to world peace. Like . . . Hitler? Who established a regime that also had “the use of violence well under control.”


  1. avatar Skyler says:

    He starts good but then he emphasizes that the state must have a monopoly on having guns. He wraps himself in the flag and tells us that thanks to his special access to guns the people of his country are safe.

    But if only governments can have guns then governments will grow tyrannical.

  2. avatar frankgon4 says:

    Well stated.
    It should be noted that in 2008 the General lost his son, First Lieutenant Dennis van Uhm, in Afghanistan.

      1. avatar frankgon4 says:

        and he truly believes in what he saying.

  3. avatar Tom says:

    Rewinding the tape.
    Hitler was democratically elected with a third of the vote.
    Hitler had gun control and essentially banned private ownership of individual weapons.
    Hitler essentially had a monopoly on the control of violence both in Germany and essentially in some bordering areas.
    A good book to read on the state of things in Germany would be “Soldat” by Seigfried Knappe.
    As Germany spun out of control with democratically elected Nationa Socialism; our Government has been spinning out of control in Iraq, Libya, Uganda, and other covert wars.
    The War on Drugs, Fast and Furious, Patriot Act, Gun Buyers Protection Act, have resulted in our Government’s War on the Constitution and Individual Liberties on the Home Front.

  4. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    Nice talk, but it doesn’t do much for your movement. In fact, I’ll bet the old Dutch war hawk would be appalled at some of the things you guys think are right.

    1. avatar TTACer says:

      Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pot all enforced a state monopoly on the means of violence. Do you wear glasses?

      1. avatar irock350 says:

        You can add George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson to that list.

        1. avatar HSR47 says:

          Only if you define the state as the citizenry as a whole, which is not the case with the other examples quoted above.

  5. avatar Tarrou says:

    I haven’t listened to the whole thing yet, but from a political science perspective, the statement that government is a legitimized monopoly on violence isn’t controversial, it’s how the world is described. It really is the only requirement to be considered a “government”. If you can commit violence in an official capacity, and restrict others from doing the same, congratulations, you are a government. And yes, Hitler is included in that (though I don’t know why it’s important, the Nazis were clearly a government, though a bad one). And the idea that the introduction of democracy into this process as the “legitimization” is the harbinger of greater peace is largely uncontroversial. It’s been well shown that democracies are far less likely to start wars than are dictatorships or monarchies. Just because democracies often transition into dictatorships and get involved in conflicts means little.

    1. avatar NR says:

      True. But there’s a difference between ‘monopolizing’ and ‘restricting the use of’.

      1. avatar matt says:

        No, in the context of a government’s basic legitimacy there is no difference. The state can delegate its authority to commit violence to another party, such as security contractors, or to the people, thru the recognition of a right to self defense. By maintaining a monopoly, the state is simply saying who can (few people) and who can’t (most people) commit violent acts, and to somehow punish those who go against its will.

    2. avatar matt says:

      Hitler was elected, Sadam was elected, and what war has the US not gotten itself willfully in to? What about WW2, that was a war we fought for democracy. Democratic governments are just as warlike as a monarchy.

      1. avatar irock350 says:

        Neither Hitler or Saddam rose to power through election. Hitler was appointed, and Saddam assumed the presidency when a former president resigned. Saddam later won one man elections and other “rigged” elections but initially he became the de facto president.

        1. avatar matt says:

          Elected perhaps wasnt the best word, but if you want to get technical, our president isnt elected by popular vote either. The members of their political elite choose them just as our political elite gets to choose our president. Wether many people or just a few people get to cast votes isnt important, just as formal elections arent important either, for example Voice Votes in the US Senate.

  6. avatar Silver says:

    Sigh, y’all should know by now that posting any firearms topic or discussion that involves politics is just going to bring out the nutballs. It’s like they can sense it in the air while they’re doing their usual slithering over at DailyKOS and just pop over here.

    That’s not to say you shouldn’t post such things, since doing so would lessen the scope of the board, just be prepared to waste your time shaking your head at 70 percent of the arguments.

  7. avatar irock350 says:

    If General Petrus is a proto-fascist, then so are the framers of the constitution and the presidents of the United States. General Petrus spent his entire TED Talk advocating the use of violence only by developed democratic nations. Petrus posits that the world has become a less violent world because of the widespread adoption of democracy and the checks and balances that are inherent within a democratic system. I am a little rusty on my political science general knowledge but a democratically elected government body with a system of checks and balances doesn’t sound like the pathway to a totalitarian single-party state governed by decree of a supreme chancellor.

  8. avatar Frank says:

    The woman was cute. That is about the only good thing I can say about this. (Other then nice AR-15) Of course he wants only the military to have firearms and thinks that is the only reason people are safe. The military, all military’s the world over fear one hing. An armed society, like here in the USA. They want only the military to have firearms because if the people have them then the military can be stopped by the citizenry. And yes that does include our own military. (In my humble opinion.)

    1. avatar frankgon4 says:

      I watched it twice. I missed the part where he wants only military and police to have guns. Can you tell me at what point in the video he says this? Or is your source of information from another source that I have not seen?

  9. avatar Tom says:

    Hitler was elected by about 30% in democratic elections.
    Hitler bannished private gun ownership for the most part.
    Hitler had a monopoly on violence within Germany and some bordering areas.
    The Founding Fathers established a Republic, and not really a Democracy.
    Still, our Government is spinning out of control as well with the War on Drugs, Patroit Act, Fast and Furious, and other battles on civil liberties.
    I believe a Republic with strong checks and balances is what is really required.

    1. avatar irock350 says:

      Firstly, Germany was not a Democracy during the time in which Hitler took power, is was a Republic. Hitler never won any of the elections her ran in, 30% elected him but he failed to succure the presidency. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the president.
      Secoundly, the USA is a constitutional Republic unlike the Wiemar Republic of Germany during the 1930’s. The differnce being that the governemnt of the USA has to abide by constitutional law no matter who is in charge, unlike Germany’s Wiemar republic whose rule was mostly by presidential decree. A constitutional rebulic has a system of checks and balances that allows for the other branches of governemnt to overrule any pf the other branches decsions.

      1. avatar matt says:

        Our president isnt elected by popular vote either. The US constitution is frequently reinterpreted to mean whatever the powers that be want it to. We have our own system of presidential decree, its called an Executive Order. Our system of checks and balances is a joke in practice. The only difference was circumstances allowed us to be successful.

  10. avatar Ordine Nuovo says:

    States having a monoply on violence not “fascist” at all. It’s a rather common perception of states to be exact. Before doling out the “fascist” description you should actually read Mussolini’s “Doctrine of Fascism.” Try do some homework before going all Godwin’s law on us with the Adolf paranoia. WW2 ended and you can tone it down. He’s not being cloned in Brazil and your tribe is pretty well off. So kindly stop seeing the face of Jesus(er, Hitler) in toast, floral arrangements, and liberal Dutchmen.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      ON, Hugo Boss called. Your uniform is ready.

  11. avatar Stacie says:

    He clearly states that failed governments (i.e. post WWI Germany) don’t think of guns as a means of peace and stability, which is when things go badly. Just because Hitler used guns, we shouldn’t stop using them for peace.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email