Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @yogat.5892  Well when you remember that Malcom X and the Black Panthers had Marxist ties, were pro segregation, and even anti-J people. I mean they even invited people like George Rockwell to a number of their anti J people rallies. It isn't hard to realize what people call Extreme Right and Extreme Left seem to come relatively from the same place. Heck the Comedy sketch called "When Wokes and Racists Actually Agree on Everything" which is on youtube express it perfectly.
    31
  2. I know a few who were in the US Army and Marines. I think they said for every 1 combat soldier you normally have 4-5 people in the rear from drivers, medics, cooks, etc supporting them.
    31
  3. ​ @steoderfragt1821  So then he's a real economist then? Because a lot of economist are idiots themselves. 😂
    30
  4. I think the best argument that I've seen toward against Worker's Rising up actually came from the Channel "Foundation for Economic Education" in their video called, Hollywood's Favorite Trope: "It's Just Business" they summed it up quite well when saying the Workers at Starbucks don't actually make the coffee, they don't farm the beans, they don't truck in the resources in nor are they involved at all in the over all process getting the coffee from a forest in South Africa to the kitchen, all the workers does at Starbucks is follow instructions taught to them by the owner or shift manager. Basically every single person ahead of the Worker at Starbucks has more rights to the claim "they make the coffee" than someone wearing a green apron who works there. People who say business owners do not work is a blatant lie, definitely those who built their business themselves. I know where I work I've seen the plant owner go up in utter rage, not at his workers but trying to deal with customers. People often forget that Business Owners have a job as well normally. In this case he is constantly on the phone with customers answering questions, when he isn't he is patrolling the factory floor waving good morning, good afternoon and trying to get a cheerful mood by hanging out with his employees, because well dealing with customers is a nightmare.
    29
  5. My thermometer outside when the sun hits it when it's about 45-50 F outside it can get into 90-100+ F. So the sun can have a big impact if it's hitting the thermometer. That being said, the translation theory is likely accurate. People often fail to understand how German numbers work. hehe
    29
  6.  @jrenjrapiro817  Or a person like you who doesn't know what Socialism is and can not even get basic definitions right in spite being a quick search or book in arm reach away. Monarcho-Socialism easily fits the definition of North Korea when you think about it, being the nation is ruled by a Hereditary family who runs a Socialist Nation. So no, it isn't out of the question, because the Hierarchy that rules society is separate from the economic system. You can have a Democratic Socialist country, or a Dictatorship, or a Monarchy. If you know what the definition of Socialism is.
    28
  7. My lord, first Metatron releases a video on Fascism like a day or two ago and now TIK. I'm a happy person now.
    27
  8. ​ @robertmatch6550  It's quite convincing. It actually makes Marx's definition of Capitalism which is a Person who accumulates wealth make sense. As the common definition of Capitalism is the private ownership of property, and capital when compared to Socialism which is public. All business even publicly owned business make money. Even the state through taxation makes money. So by default all people who deal with 'money' regardless are capitalist if you go by Marx. His crap definition of Capitalist makes no practical sense what so ever, and is why some Socialist can easily claim "Socialism has never been tried." Because of this bad definition of Capitalisms we have to come to a conclusion that it means something more. When you compare Marx's definition of Capitalist along side the Stereotypical Rhetoric of the money hoarding "J*." It's quite striking, and in actuality literally the same thing. Every instance of how Marx describes a Capitalist, literally fits perfectly with old Christian antisemitic rhetoric of the J**. This can not be a coincidence. Marx even made it clear in one of his passages that it must not be a coincidence that the J* has become the money lender of today or something along those lines. There he referenced it directly. Because of this, you can come to two primary conclusions. 1. If Marx didn't do this intentionally, by writing this book he still encouraged antisemitism on a wide scale. So when people claim he was actually trying to protect J** they're ignorant as F*** because it would imply people wouldn't take what he wrote literally. Which As TIK pointed out, some did take it literally. So Marx utterly failed if that was his goal. 2. Marx's definition of Capitalist is in itself has it's roots in antisemitism. The Greedy Capitalist is based off the stereotype of the Greedy J*. Whether Marx intended this or not. His definition of a Capitalist is literally the stereotype of a money hoarding J* and there is no way to separate that. So to be honest, TIK isn't wrong.
    27
  9. Pavlov's House I think was also represented in Red Orchestra 2. Unlike Call of Duty it wasn't covered in snow, and trees were still covered in leaves.
    26
  10. There has been a push for International Nazism. By Nazi supporters in and out side of Europe including the third world to promote the Nazis as not Racist. Their goal is to paint the Nazis as heroes trying to save the world from communism. Pretty sure we all know the fallacy in that argument.
    26
  11.  @jrenjrapiro817  I don't see how, I went through the few comments you posted, and you did not address it at all. If you're only argument is that Hitler's community isn't a community because he removed people from his community, then youhave completely ignored the fundamental idea in Hitler's eye of the Community. Fascism believed in the National Community built around Nationality (Different than Ethnicity). Marxism believed in an International Community built around the Workers/Laborers. Hitler Believed in a Racial Community built around the Race. It was still a community, but it excluded none Germans/Nordic peoples. But he still advocated the creation of a Socialist Community, but one built on Race/Ethnicity. Being the definition of Socialism doesn't State what kind of Community society had to be your argument is mute, and doesn't hold up to even basic reflection on what is a Community?
    26
  12.  @AFGuidesHD  If I recall Stalin realized the German dependency on their oil. I honestly think Hitler didn't trust Stalin, rightly so. What they had to trade for the oil wasn't just resources. But also technology. Hitler believed he had no choice. Ever month that passed the USSR would get stronger. I'm pretty sure the Germans realized that after Finland the Soviets would learn from their mistakes and be a far stronger foe if left alone too long.
    25
  13. It is moments like this that as a viewer you get this sense of living history. I'm thrilled to see such a reply.
    25
  14. Finally finished this video, being at work I could only listen to it in increments. I'm honestly shocked how terrible Marx was as a person. Not just toward his rivals, but toward his friends and family, if you can call them friends. This man would be considered an abuser in the modern age, treating friends like pockets who he manipulated to line his own pocket, treated his family like dirt and seemed to have little sympathy even for his Wife/Children. Based on what you're posted from Jenny, likely convinced her of "His" victimhood so she'd not blame him for their struggles. This is inherently tragic. If he was alive today, his children would have been taken away by the Child Protection Agency/Service.
    25
  15. Honestly I think Marx meant by that phrase, people who were inwardly Jews, not literal Jews. So TIK likely got that translation wrong. Marx was likely referring to people with that line who were practicing the Jewish faith of "Money." So when you think about it. Marx blames Jews for creating Capitalism, and is referring to none Jews who are also practicing this money hoarding faith. It's literal classic antisemitism but being applied to anyone that makes money.
    25
  16. To be honest, what is the difference? A Commission is normally a body (Group/organization) put in charge of a specific state task. A Commissariat is pretty much the same thing. If you just look up the definitions for the term Commission a vast majority are administrative uses.
    24
  17.  @jrenjrapiro817  Google Definition: Community A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government. n The district or locality in which such a group lives. ^ Does not Exclude the Concept of a Racial Community. Websters: Community 1. a unified body of individuals: such as a: the people with common interests living in a particular area broadly : the area itself b: a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society c: a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society d: a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests etc ^ Does not exclude the concept of a Racial Community, ironically the concept of a Racial Community easily fits most of those already. So no, Hitler didn't have a warped sense of what a Community is. For example, there are communities in the USA in which you can only live if you have a specific IQ. Exclusive Community only for Smart people, literally look it up they exist. A Community can exclude specific people, in fact communities are often built on that concept more often than not. Communities within the greater community. Regardless you can make a Racial Community, there is no RULE that says it wouldn't be a community. Again, you're pulling on Straws.
    24
  18.  @jrenjrapiro817  "I know the first desire of an ideologue like yourself is to leap to insults when called out on it, but I have quoted the definition back to you. You seem unable to address that." ^ sorry but yours are not dictionary definitions, so to me meaningless. They're likely ideological definitions, but they're not OFFICIAL definitions. Yet you're accusing me of being the ideologue. Project very often? " And again - the community. not "one community of many, picked out at random, based only on one or two traits held in common" ' ^ Ironic that you're able to accidently admit there can be separate communities. That being said what you typed, that sounds a lot like Fascism. One of it's primary goals was to bring all the different social groups in society into one greater National Community. However, that still doesn't disprove a nation can make a Racial Community. Your definition of Community is not an official definition of community at least one I've ever seen. "You're stretching the definition of socialism now, to really mean any community. So, let's bring up a fact I brought up previously. Everyone, socialists, anti-socialists, historians, ect, agree that socialism is an ideology that finds its most prevalent and important roots in at earliest the 17th century. You do, however, realize that ownership of the means of production by exclusive groups existed long before then, right? I mean, why use NK as an example, why not go whole hog and use medival england? the roman empire? hell, ancient egypt?" I'm not stretching the definition of Socialism. Did the Roman Emperor own the Farms? The Shops? The Senate? Even in Feudalism, the Kings didn't own the blacksmiths, artisans who built the castles and cathedrals were paid and contracted to do so. A lot of people seem to have a weird view of the middle ages, Serfdoms perhaps but those were primarily exclusive to the farms. North Korea is a great example, because it is a Socialist country. Yet it's ruled by a dictatorship that morphed into a Monarchy. And referring to that there is little difference between a Dictatorship and an Absolute Monarchy outside of one being Hereditary and the other not. But a dictatorship can become a Monarchy. So I guess Stalin isn't a Socialist. Lenin wasn't a Socialist, Mao wasn't a Socialist. Because they were all dictators. Only difference is they didn't pass their power onto their children. That being said, did Lenin have children? Stalin and Mao did but... irrelevant. Kim did pass it on.
    24
  19.  @patmccall4647  And we would only have to deal with holodomor deniers like Einstein ironically.
    24
  20. Without watching the video first, if I recall, there was a lot of German-Arab sympathies during the war. Even Saddam Hussein's uncle, I think it was his uncle was part of the anti British pro German Iraqi movement. A number of Arab countries had revolts during the war, even in India there were some attempts to organize similarly to what the Arabs were doing. Though I think Iraq was the biggest revolt. ie they were hoping to use the war to push out the Colonial Occupations of their nations, even if their nations were not real nations, just lines on a map decreed by Empires. Now proceeds to watch video*
    24
  21.  @cdcdrr  It's why David Cole quit even after he came out of hiding. He critized the HD community for refusing to admit when they're wrong, and being unable to find evidence to support some of their claims.
    23
  22.  @jrenjrapiro817  "Now its always funny to me when someone says socialism is state ownership because they conflate public with the public sector." Yet most of the definition refer to state and government. Seems you're pulling on straws.
    23
  23.  @On_The_Piss  You went into denial that anyone would watch the video, (edited comment) and now you fall back to going "OMG it's too complicated for anyone to understand, and he did it intentionally to fool, fools." =P He color coats everything, leaves citations and even time stamps every 20-30 minutes in the description. Confusion is the least of a person's worry. Not having the time to watch the video is also not a problem either. So neither your first iteration of that comment, nor your second is relevant. Likely because, you've not watched it, or tried, nor care to, but yet willing bash the video.
    22
  24.  @Sedgewise47  I recall TIK quoting that book before.
    22
  25. Ironic that some early Socialist proclaimed Socialism to be the opposite of Individualism. In turn that would mean Collectivism itself is Socialism. According to them of course. This is why I've put myself on a position that the raise of 19th Century Nationalism is also a symptom of Socialism, and is in a way a sibling of Socialism. It's always about placing the Community above yourself.
    22
  26.  @jrenjrapiro817  General and TIK are correct on the definition of Socialism however. It's the same definition I was taught in school. It's the definition literally found in all offiical English Dictionaries. HECK even Google's definition. Google Definition: Socialism Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. Websters: Socialism 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property 2b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Being General already posted the Oxford definition I'm not going to. However both Google, Oxford and Websters state the Public Ownership of the Means of Production, and being the Public Sector is the State, hence why the state is referred to as the Public Sector, it is LITERALLY State ownership of the Means of Production. When a definition states Common, Society, Government, State, they all relatively mean exactly the same thing. Public Control of the Means of Production. Capitalism is the Private Control of the Means of Production. That is literally the fundamental difference between Capitalism and Socialism. Private Ownership vs State Ownership. Private Police = Capitalism (Security Guards) Public Police = Socialism (Local, State and Federal Law enforcement) Private Hospitals = Capitalism Public Hospitals = Socialism Private Farm = Capitalism Public Farm = Socialism (Collective Farm, State owned Farms etc etc etc) Over and Over again. Fundamental Difference. How much your nation is one or the other defines how much of a Capitalist country you are vs a Socialist Country. So it's why you can argue there has never been a truly Capitalist country, as it would require a VERY weak central state. Were has Socialism has been tried and failed many times over. USSR being one of the best examples, were the state literally owned almost everything.
    22
  27.  @jrenjrapiro817  Don't be coy. It was directed at your interpretation of the definition of Socialism, which you already stated is not communism. I do not accuse people of being the sort or really care. If Socialism is the greater community in control, what about non conformist who refuse to be a part of that community? What about Capitalist? What about religious groups who my have incompatible beliefs with laws agreed upon by the greater community? There will always be people who do not conform. You claimed Nazism can not be Socialist because it excludes and does not include everyone. So how do you create a society that does? Btw I just realized I goofed. You're right I did mention Classless Society that would imply. Well sorry. Though personally the question is still relevant at least the revised version.
    22
  28. Like my friend in the US Marines who couldn't get hearing protection in spite of being in the artillery before deployment. He sadly has hearing problems now and this was just 3 years ago.
    22
  29. To be honest, in a round about way I'd say "YES" Regardless. Similar to the effect Prussia's defeats against Napoleon reshaped the Prussian Military, and helped introduce German Nationalism. The Franco-Prussian war had a similar effect on the French. I'd say of course losing, and given cruel terms would do the same to post WWI Germany. Though, to defend the British/French post WWI, the Franco-Prussian war saw some pretty harsh terms and even reparations forced upon the French by the Prussians. So what you see with Versailles was more common than people think, and should of been expected, though I still think the terms were too harsh. I just don't believe an entire nation should be punished for the decisions of it's leaders. All you do is give ammunition for political extremist to use. Now is the Treaty of Versailles responsible for Hyper Inflation? I'd highly doubt it, as it's mostly caused by internal economic decisions not external. I mean, without all the military spending, you'd think Germany could afford the reparations? So the Versailles treaty kind of gave Germany the ability to pay those reparations, even if they were high reparations.
    21
  30. I put it this way. Christians, Hebrews and Islamic religions worship the same God. Yet they've historically been hostile toward eachother.
    21
  31. Wait it's been two weeks already? Man time flies. Welcome Back TIK. I fed my TIK itch with watching older videos. ^^
    20
  32.  @jrenjrapiro817  Marx's book, On The Jewish Question. Clearly kept his bigotry to himself. He also mentions his antisemitism in a few Articles, the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Yes he totally keeps his bigotry personal. Btw I didn't run away, your REEEING friend spammed so much YT stopped sending me notifications which is exactly why he does that.
    20
  33. I'm liking Orwell more and more. I came to the same conclusion that isms are literally surrogate religions without knowing he viewed them the same way. I first realized it ironically because of an anime Gundam Unicorn put the thought in my head back in 2011, episode 3 I think when it referred to Zeonism (Fake ideology meant to parody Marxism/Nazism). When I applied it to social collectivist movements it was quite striking. In many ways it started my shift away from Socialism myself.
    20
  34. It's called Red Pilling. But at a Sociology and Economic level rather than say your trust in media/state. ie you learn you can not trust anyone of authority including your academics you taught you in school. I'm kind of glad that my Composition II professor, she said "Never view you professors as being smarter than yourself, most of them are no dumber than you." She was an ex US Marine so she had a sassy but welcoming attitude in my opinion towards her fellow staff.
    19
  35. I heard one of them calling him Teelk. I guess TIK is a member of SG-1.
    19
  36. It why I like TIK he doesn't just vomit out what he's read ie verbally copy/paste his content from cited sources. As his phrase goes "But is that really the case?" He gives people a reason to think. Which is a skill that is necessary to comprehend history. It's far superior to just blatant recitation.
    19
  37. "Door was made out of wood, it just couldn't be used for mass murder. "
    19
  38.  @jrenjrapiro817  How does one achieve that Classless Society? What if someone refuses to be a party of that ideal society, or a group or entire religion? They do not want to be a part of that greater community?
    19
  39. As a former Fascist myself, dropped it years ago, he even understands Fascism considerably better than most people including most history tubers. I mean I ran into one history tuber that said Fascism was how did he put it, a Ideology of Contradictions and Redundancy? Basically saying it had no core economic and social foundation, and was entirely a nationalist military totalitarians reactionary movement that is whatever it wants to be at the time to react to some other form of social revolution. Which seems to be the common impression of Fascism. Which means Fascism has no definition, to to them but a Nationalist Reactionary Movement. Mean while they link ideologies to Fascism that are not Fascist, so they can claim Fascism is an ideology that has no core foundation, as all Fascist movements are TOO radically different from each other. Where I would say that shows a serious flaw in their definition of Fascism and would question whether many of those regimes are even Fascist, something Orwell seemed to notice, and even questioned, which TIK presented in the video "What is Fascism?" Which Orwell openly admitted most people's view on Fascism is well idiocy not his own words. In short when you read between the lines of what they're saying, any social movement which is counter to the glorious Marxist Revolution is Fascist. Which you know is incorrect, but that view, that foundation of what Fascism "is" (Isn't) is what most people use to build their foundation of Fascism in their head, so in turn few including those making YouTube videos understand what Fascism even is. Of course historians who are not socialist who use those sources as sources, even if they're not socialist themselves may or may not catch the falsehood in their statements which is why so many youtube videos get this wrong, even if the youtuber making the video may not be a socialist. TIK actually tried, and did very good in his Mussolini and Fascism Defined video, he actually cared to figure out what Fascism was, at a fundamental level. He used sources with are sympathetic (not supportive but uses Fascist sources directly) but are willing to actually use sources that went to the mouth of Fascist themselves for their information/understanding of the movement. Fascism was, and has always been a Socialist ideology, even back when Fascist didn't want to openly admit it. Fascist did not want to be associated with Socialism 'directly' but the entire reason they called themselves a 3rd way was so many people were terrified of Marxism, and tried to disassociate themselves from the Marxist Socialist movement. It was almost required at the time. As so many throughout society were terrified of Marxism. This is why Nationalist Focused Socialist movements dominated much of Central Europe, and the Balkan States. Why countries like Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Greece, among others all leaned toward Fascism, and some of them turning directly Fascist even before the start of WWII. Why? People wanted Socialism, they just didn't want Marxism. Fascist brought a new option to them, and the Fascist knew they were Socialist. Which is why Orwell listed them among the parties which needed to make admissions in his article "What is Fascism?" at the time when Orwell wrote that, most Fascist didn't like openly admitting they were Socialist, and Socialist didn't like openly admitting Fascism was Socialist, Fascist today openly admit being Socialist today, and it's only none Fascist Socialist who are in denial still. Orwell seemed to of figured it out. He just didn't openly admit it, I figure to keep many of his socialist readers from "running away" from his writings. Basically Fascism was a nationalistic centered rebranding of Socialism, if you want a super simple explanation why it exist.
    19
  40. This is Ironically why I voted for Obama twice when I was a Fascist. People get totally confused why, by you just have to point to Keynesianism.
    19
  41.  @On_The_Piss  To be honest he made that point in earlier videos, yet people didn't care to accept them. I'd say between 1 hour to 2 hour 30 minutes if you watch that, it is almost undeniable, the Nazis were Socialist. It's an argument I often try to make with people. You have to view Fascism, Marxism, and National Socialism like Religions. They're Socialist or at the very least were born from the Socialist movement, and hold many Socialist elements, and ideologies within their own ideology. It is like comparing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam of which themselves have multiple different splinters, and sects. Yet they all worship the same "God." That is how Marxist Socialism doesn't look the same as Fascism, or National Socialism. Leninism, or Maoism. All created by 'men' who had different ideas on how to reach Utopia of Socialism. That being said though. TIK's comparisons between Marxist Socialism of the USSR and National Socialism of Nazi Germany do make the Nazis look more like the Soviets than they do Mussolini's Fascist. Which is a breath of fresh air for me, as I would often compare the regimes, but I never knew it went so deep.
    18
  42.  @_Dovar_  The line "Kam’raden die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen"
    18
  43. Normal behavior. The guys who think differently always considers the opposition as fools, ignorant or idiots.
    18
  44. Don't worry Socialist will just reject the definition of State, and claim Socialism has nothing to do with the State, or fall back on "Socialism is Worker Controlled!" Which is the issue I actually had the other day. Two days of back/forth discussion, and the guy's final defense really was "Definitions change over time rawr!" Which would mean no Socialist was ever a Socialist as Socialism's definition is always changing. He was so bankrupt in his defense that when I brought up Utopian Socialism, and later Ferdinand Lassalle when referring to Socialist who either always had or eventually rejected the Marxist Class view of the State. He used the word "Gay" and how the meaning of that word changed over time. Even though I can still use the word in proper context like "The man won the sweepstakes and gayfully ran down the street." And you and I would understand it completely. ie the Meaning hasn't changed, it just has alternate uses now, and it's old meaning just became less common. What is worse, he also admits that Socialism for one movement may not mean the same thing for the other. So it was easy to ask "Since when did Marxist have a monopoly on the Word Socialism?" Of course he didn't answer that question. The person basically rejected the idea that Socialism is anything but Worker Control of the Means of Production, even though there is so much evidence that proves otherwise. Even Social Democrats advocate for State Control, not "Worker Control" and guess which is the most popular socialist movement? Social Democracy. Then when resorted to mentioning he is only proving Ludwig Mises right by claiming the definition is ever changing. Of course by even mentioning the name Mises was like a sin and the guy used the fact I even said the name Mises as a Rebuttal in spite I mentioned him knowing Socialist consider him a hack and that he was only supporting Mises by holding his position. He used the fact I mentioned his name even in the slightest as a form of proof I had no idea what I was talking about. That I did a rebuttal to myself by even saying the name Mises. So I just gave up after that. The level of denialism is just nuts. I literally brought up many of the arguments you presented in this video. All this because the guy mentioned you and called you a Hack and I begged the differ.
    18
  45.  @On_The_Piss  Present what he said in the video that is wrong then. If not, I'd highly suggest not making accusations. Time stamping what he said is wrong is highly recommended as well. =P
    17
  46.  @MakeAllThingsBeautiful  Lets you know it wasn't Stalingrad that doomed the German Army in the east. They were already exhausted, and were running on steam by the time they reached the city. It's almost insane to think that some historians and generals blamed Paulus for their defeat there. I still think that a lot of the defamatory declarations against Paulus by a number of officers and historians including Halder likely has something to do with Paulus joining the German General League while in captivity and later Testifying against his peers post war at Nuremberg. This is just about the only reason I can think of why Paulus was given such a bad rep after the war. ie 1st/2nd Generation Nazis and 1st Generation Wehraboos being the cause. This is very likely why so many historians seem to leave out the early months of the advance onto Stalingrad and fast forward, either because it's uninteresting and they think it would cause readers to be fatigued before getting to the juicy battle for the city everyone wants to read in a book about Stalingrad or they don't want people to know how much the German Army was struggling even before reaching the city, let alone actually taking it. Stalingrad wasn't the city that bled the German Army white, ie the Verdun of the East, Stalingrad was the city that proved the German logistic were no longer able to handle the demand placed on it.
    17
  47.  @jrenjrapiro817  I know you'd avoid answering those questions.
    17
  48.  @dr1flush  Personally I care more about describing what they were in context beyond where they fall on a political chart. Hitler was anti capitalist, anti marxist, anti conservative and at the same time anti liberal. His movement went against traditional German conservativism. Yet they were also not progressive, quite anti progressive in many areas. It's why it's difficult in my opinion to place them on a chart involving left/right. TIK described it well, Nazi ideology was held together with glue and silly tape and filled with contradictions. Good example, they claimed they were pro family a very conservative thing to say. Yet used the Hitler youth to brainwash/condition kids, and even have them spy on their families. Soviet Union and Communist China did the exact same thing with their youth programs as well, but they're not associated with the right. Mean while Hitler was very pro animal rights, against eating meat, and a few other things, some things which you could accuse him of being a hippy for. Yet was anti homosexual, believed women belong at home, among other conservative values. So yes, I think it's far more complicated than Liberalism vs Conservativism or Left vs Right. It's why I don't like accusing one as being one or the other. Try avoiding adding that label onto anything if I can. People are too complicated.
    17
  49. ​ @throeawae2130  I'm going to assume you never bothered to watch this video. 1. Socialism has nothing to do with Ethnic Nationalism, or any Social Group. Socialism is the State control of the Economy. So you can have an Ethnic Nationalist State that is Socialist. You can google Socialism and definition is literally that. Common Control, Social Control or State Control will be the most common definitions of Socialism Common, ie Community. Social ie, Society. Being the State is the Public Sector, the Social Hierarchy that rules society, if it's Common or Social control it literally still means the State. So there is no rule that dictates a Racial State, can not be Socialist. PS this definition of "State Control" I can literally point to a Former Soviet Citizen who has a youtube channel, who will state the exact same definition of Socialism that TIK uses in his video. So... ya. 2. The Nazis persecuted other Socialist because they were not Racial Socialist. I guess when Catholic Christians persecute Protestant Christians, they're not Christians? See the logic there? I guess Stalin wasn't a socialist because he murdered other socialist.
    17
  50.  @On_The_Piss  Waves then don't bash a video you're not going to watch.
    16