General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Walter Bailey
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "Walter Bailey" (@walterbailey2950) on "TIKhistory" channel.

Previous
14
Next
...
All

@jluvs2ride Dumkopf thinks that one has to advocate socialism in order to be against the falsification of history. But that’s how ideologues think. It’s how Marxist as well as libertarian ideologues think. Socialism like anarcho-libertarianism is a utopian ideology and therefore doesn’t work in reality. Nazism is works for the intended beneficiaries but only until the persecuted majority unites to stop them.
1
@jluvs2ride We’ve already noted that you’re incapable of objective thought and therefore can’t imagine anyone insisting on an accurate description of anything without defending it as their own view. For you there’s only propaganda. This is how ideologues and cultists think. It’s not how Historians or anyone else connected with reality thinks.
1
@jluvs2ride The majority persecuted by the Nazis consisted of the rest of Europe.
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah by that time Stalin had already confiscated vast amounts of land and other wealth functionally destroying social classes. He wasn’t talking about doing it in the future after a war was over. He had already done it, taking the lives of millions of people in the process. During this period Hitler was actually privatizing more industry. And he didn’t say he was going to eliminate classes even after the war but rather class differences among members of the master race. That’s nothing more than unifying the master races one people which you always said it’s not the overthrow of the bourgeoisie or the forced collectivization of property.
1
@guyvert49 That’s analogous to saying that it’s like Christianity including the Islamic, Buddhist, and Hindu varieties of Christianity.
1
@guyvert49 When I say that I’m smoking the same thing that people are smoking who say that Nazism is a left-wing ideology. The substance is called: “falsifying history and ideas because I can’t accept reality. I live in a fantasy world where people are only capable of evil on the left.” And it’s NOT a good drug. It dulls the senses to the point that you can’t see any danger coming from the right, no matter how deadly it is.
1
@overdose8329 He wasn’t exactly a great humanitarian
1
@jluvs2ride The distinction is very significant. They come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. That doesn’t mean that any of them are good. But it does mean that no place is safe from dangerous ideologies. You can’t say well I’m a conservative therefore so long as I stay conservative I won’t be in any danger of associating with any murderous ideology like say fascism. As for this cult doctrine of collectivism that’s arisen recently in Libertarian circles, from what libertarians say it’s basically a reference to any government, anything that doesn’t posit an inherent conflict between the individual and all government. The American founder saw it differently in. They believe that individual rights were very important but that republican government was there to secure not threaten the rights of the people.
1
@jluvs2ride Many of the points were not Hitler’s true goals. Many of the points were a subterfuge that Hitler used at the Bamberg conference to outmaneuver the remaining leftists in the Nazi party. He used them to hijack the party and turn it into a far right authoritarian organization.
1
@choosecarefully408 Think of understanding ideology as like airport security face recognition technology. You do want to be able to recognize the dangerous ideologies and not just say all the people coming through the airport are the same, right?
1
@guyvert49 Fascism including Nazism is a great example of a right wing ideology that kills people. You’re just proving my point but attempting to say that nothing bad ever happens on the right. Only an ideologue could believe something so absurd. Leftist ideology is based on the idea of including all people in the redistribution of wealth. It’s heresy to leftist ideology to exclude and target people based on race the way the Nazis did. Hitler also bitterly opposed the confiscation of aristocratic estates all the way through his leader ship of the Nazi party. This is what Socialism meant to Hitler “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, of efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false. Hitler 1938 And if you think that mere adherence to the community makes someone a socialist then the American founding fathers were also socialists. (Well one of them Thomas Paine actually was but not the rest of them). “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.” John Adams
1
@overdose8329 Based on the idea that only a leftist can be an authoritarian right. Let’s just forget about thousands of years of history before leftism even existed when conservatism meant protecting the authoritarian rule of the king, emperor, pharaoh,noble lord etc How do you propose we do that?.
1
@guyvert49 Medieval and early modern Europe: subordination of the individual to the state or its intermediary-yes Control of the means of production by the elite-yes Price controls-yes Arbitrary legal system with few or no rights for most people-yes No freedom of speech or the press- yes All of it was also very traditional and for hundreds of years if you were conservative it’s what you supported.
1
@guyvert49 Again you’re attacking authoritarianism and trying to make it seem that hundreds of years of history should be just magically ignored and conservatism should be defined as incapable of authoritarianism by definition. This is just the no true Scotsman fallacy.
1
@guyvert49 The whole point of Socialism is redistributing wealth and eliminating economic classes. It also promotes equality. This is impossible with racism.
1
@guyvert49 Hello the whole idea of conservatism is maintaining something older. So something that’s right of center which throws out the past he’s like dehydrated water-A non sequitur. And the old regime of Europe and their descendant structures very much have represent conservatism today.
1
@guyvert49 Right up to the present day conservatives try to preserve the legacy of feudalism and those feudal and early modern structures are still profoundly influential and conservative and radical thought in the west today. They are the original things that were “conserved” in the West. Now you’re just making up your own definitions of both leftism and conservatism.
1
@guyvert49 So what if the dialectic is real and really does describe what happened during the French revolution? Would that redefine conservatism, no. It was also during that period that Edmund Burke founded modern conservatism In maintaining continuity with the past: the same feudal past that the French revolution was reacting against.
1
@guyvert49 Traditional authoritarian structures never cease to be part of the past. Trying to preserve them the way the Nazis did never becomes left of center. Authoritarianism in Germany in particular has an unbroken history from the middle ages all the way through the 19th and early twentieth centuries. It was very much the “traditional establishment” of Germany throughout that entire time. So the Nazis preservation of it doesn’t become leftist just because you don’t think that authoritarianism ought to be considered anything conservative. The simple fact is that it was conservative not just of the distant past but of the recent past in Germany. And you don’t get to make up your own definitions in order to rewrite the history of ideas. You may want to rewrite history but that’s simply not within your power. This is the problem with cult theorizing like anarcho-libertarianism: its willful ignorance of and attempt to disregard history. History is reality. It doesn’t necessarily conform to your theories about the way things should be. And in fact it very often doesn’t, especially when you’re a utopian ideologue like an anarcho-libertarian. Utopian theorists like Marxists and libertarians are continually getting contradicted by the unfolding events of history because they try to force fit pure abstractions onto much messier and more complex human nature. But espousing conservatism doesn’t insulate you from human nature and its potential to be corrupted by power. It never has and it never will no matter how “modern” conservative ideology becomes. Power will always corrupt people no matter where they are on the political spectrum or what ideology their espouse. So there will always be potential for evil and authoritarianism on both left and the right.
1
@TheManofthecross The reason why it’s impossible for you to win is because the facts are not on your side. Because you’re promoting libertarian dogma that would have us believe that human nature can’t be corrupted unless it’s on the left. That should be laughable on its face but not to a libertarian ideologue who is determined to ignore history. The fact remains that Germany was authoritarian for centuries before the Nazis and that’s what the Nazis were conserving.
1
@malcolmdewey2165 German conservatives for centuries before Hitler wanted big government too. Does that make them liberals? You’re gonna tell me that Otto von Bismarck was a “liberal”? You’re stuck in the libertarian paradigm which is a historical period your real problem is with authoritarianism not with the left or the right because they can both be authoritarian. Few of the people posting here have the faintest idea of traditional German authoritarianism before Hitler. They’re wearing blinders of ignorance
1
@malcolmdewey2165 Little do you realize that what you call liberalism today has its origins in a reaction against the kind of authoritarianism that Hitler was preserving
1
@malcolmdewey2165 The first emperor of China wanted big government 2000 years ago. Does that make him the same as Karl Marx? 😂🤣🤷🏼‍♂️
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah socialism is frequently authoritarian. So are monarchism, capitalism, and fascism. Yet you think that human nature is incorruptible everywhere except for on the left. So did lord Acton get it wrong? Should we add a caveat to what he said? E.g. Power corrupts…but only on the left? We can trust anyone with power so long as they don’t espouse leftist ideology, because there’s no other way to become a tyrant? I bet Samuel Adams and George Washington never knew that they were fighting a communist😆😂🤣😂
1
@jluvs2ride You should’ve told that to John Adams, James Madison et al. They had this crazy idea that the people actually secure their liberty through their representatives in government not by individuals being in a perpetual state of war with all government. You people are sustained by 20th Century myths that have no other connection to historical reality. It’s your religion.
1
@AidenRKrone Leftist may Harbor prejudices but they’re not tenants of the ideology as in Nazism
1
@jasontrauger8515 He hijacked a leftist political party gutted it and filled it full of anti-leftist ideas
1
@donaldsheckler3636 You might be right that the left inherently authoritarian. Utopian ideologies tend to be like that. But that doesn’t mean that it’s the only inherently authoritarian ideology out there and holds some kind of exclusionary principle that keeps anything else from being authoritarian
1
@jluvs2ride Authoritarianism is authoritarianism. It doesn’t really differ depending upon what ideology it’s supporting. How does that lead to the conclusion that it can only support one ideology? That a tyrant can’t arise from anywhere along the political spectrum and wield authoritarianism to advance any ideology? Some probably are more given to authoritarianism than others especially those on the furthest ends of both sides of the political spectrum.
1
@jluvs2ride No I’m saying their authoritarianism is more or less the same and that that’s the main issue. Authoritarianism was more of an avowed purpose of Nazi ideology and it did target Particular groups as victims more. But it led to hideous oppression in both Germany and the Soviet Union. Apart from their authoritarianism However Nazi and Soviet ideology were very different.
1
@jluvs2ride The factual evidence actually shows that more people died because of Hitler than Stalin. But once you get into millions of deaths it’s not much of a difference anyway.
1
@guyvert49 I suggest you read more of what Hitler said throughout his career… And study Mein Kampf more carefully if in fact you really have read it. I also suggest you look at what Hitler actually did while in power and compare that to what he said. It’s hard to convey how ridiculous you sound contending that human nature is incorruptible so long as people don’t ascribe to leftist ideology. You would have us believe that conservatives never become tyrants once they get power in their hands. And you have to have an amazing ignorance of history and a lack of common sense to believe that.
1
@jluvs2ride No I’m saying their ideology was entirely different and had opposite goals. Their authoritarianism wasn’t all that different. It wasn’t all that different from authoritarianism in late 19th century Germany or Czarist Russia either. You obviously don’t understand anything about their ideology and are only aware of authoritarianism. But you need to understand their ideology if you want to know where they came from and where someone like them might come from in the future. So understanding ideology is hardly insignificant.
1
@guyvert49 Thatcher’s devotion to libertarian cult theory doesn’t change the history of conservative thought. It doesn’t enable you or anyone else to redefine what has been and what hasn’t been conservative, because conservatism like all ideology is a historical phenomena. Anarcho-libertarians such as yourself are attempting to redefine authoritarianism as leftist by definition In an attempt to dodge thousands of years of history. (Utopian thinkers always have a problem with history. It becomes an inconvenience for you every time.) In each instance when you’re called on this you simply assert that you’re not doing so. But anytime someone brings up an example of conservative authoritarianism you rehash your ahistorical definition “it’s authoritarian therefore can’t be conservative.” At this point we’re supposed to just go along with your ignoring historical fact. Other people in your cult will be happy to do this. But I refuse to put down either rational thought or empirical evidence in favor of your blind utopian faith. Your veneration of anarchy simply creates a perfect opportunity for the next Hitler. And we cannot afford that.
1
@jluvs2ride yeah you assert that again because you always make assertions without evidence. But 1/4 of the entire population of Belorussia alone was murdered by the Nazis. When Soviet archives opened finally in the 1990s it didn’t make Stalin look like a great humanitarian but the number of people who actually died in the Soviet union under Stalin had to be revised downward by an order of magnitude. Stalin was still revealed to be responsible for the unjust deaths of millions. so it shouldn’t really matter. With either Hitler or Stalin you’re dealing with horrible oppression on a vast scale. But your defense of Hitler implied by your attempt to play up one over the other shows I suspect a lack of confidence that you can really prove that Hitler belongs on the left.
1
@jluvs2ride We’ve been over this several times already. You don’t seem capable of understanding. But here it is once again for the sake of argument: Communist ideological principles: Redistribution of wealth, elimination of classes, state confiscation of property, provision for each according to need Without regard for ethnicity, nationality or anything else, class warfare, Revolutionary overthrow of the Russian monarchy and aristocracy and replacement with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Nazi ideological principles: The advancement of one particular chosen race at the expense of others deemed unworthy, Protection of economic classes and private property as the just earnings of superior effort and ability by the “Master race,” romantic Nationalism, the unity of different economic classes within the “master race” as one people, Bitter opposition to Internationalism and the confiscation of wealth from the Aryan elite, preservation of traditional German authoritarianism.
1
@jluvs2ride Saying that you can substitute race for class and remain a leftist is like saying that you can substitute worshiping Satan for worshiping Christ and remain a Catholic. The point of which you do that is the point at which you’re no longer on the left, If you ever were. You just don’t have a clue about the history of leftist ideology if you really think otherwise.
1
@jluvs2ride The Russian people were nationalistic and the Stalin regime cultivated that in order to win the war but it’s not part of Marxist ideology like it is Nazi ideology.
1
@jluvs2ride The Marxist view of private property is that the individual doesn’t have a role at all. It’s commonly owned. People are simply not allowed to accumulate great personal wealth and hold onto it the way they were in Nazi Germany. I guess to an anarcho -libertarian anything other than the individual on his own is Socialism but that leaves us in a binary world where the only possibilities are Socialism and anarchy: absurd.
1
@jluvs2ride You just did defend Hitler with false information. The number of people murdered by Hitler was a good bit higher than those who died at Stalin’s hands but once you get into the millions why are you splitting hairs? Both Hitler and Stalin were murderous tyrants. What kind of person defends either one of them?
1
@jluvs2ride As you know he also said this four years later: “Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism.” And claimed to have taken Socialism away from the socialists. Sometimes he paid homage to the leftist origins of the Nazi party in order to deceive people. Often the distinctions he made appeared subtle at first until you thought about the underlying ideas and saw what he was actually doing: None of the things required by core leftist principles.
1
@jluvs2ride He implemented far more of Marx including the forced collectivization of farmsand nationalization of industry as a percentage of the economy than the Nazis did of the German economy. The relative percentages are not even close.
1
@jluvs2ride Yeah that formulation is not leftist. When Hitler said that he appealed to an ancient German concept of the commonweal. And it allowed for the ownership of private property, Including the accumulation of vast sums of wealth something that Hitler never seriously challenged. It wasn’t just about the individual but it most definitely did extol and protect the individual, something that is conspicuously absent in left socialist thought.
1
@AverageAlien Of course not… If you look at several hundred years of European history and see leaders such as the Hohenzollerns, Romanovs, Bourbons, Hanoverians etc., It’s just your imagination. There were never any traditional authoritarian structures in Europe. The French revolution was just a reaction against nothing. They were hallucinating.
1
@AverageAlien The American revolution was also completely unnecessary. The leaders of England at the time were actually communists who thought we weren’t radical enough
1
@jluvs2ride I’m saying he was a Nazi who hijacked a leftist organization and turned it into a right wing authoritarian organization as before.
1
@jluvs2ride The British and the French enacted more nationalization than Hitler. Does that make them communist? Hitler articulated his theory of seizing property, in the few instances when he did do it, as a means of advancing the state usually turning it over to another private landowner. He didn’t do it to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat or worker ownership of the means of production. And advancing the goals of the state through government ownership is something that European monarchs long before Hitler had been doing. Just because it doesn’t meet your definition of conservatism doesn’t mean that it wasn’t in a real European historical sense.
1
@jluvs2ride In the United States, Britain and France industries produced what the state wanted during the war. If that’s the criteria then every state was communist during World War II. But again the Germans were actually late and mobilizing their economy for war and the government took less of a role until much later in deciding what industries produced. This isn’t even close to the kind of central planning in the Soviet union during the 1930s
1
@jluvs2ride He almost never talks about the state without also talking about the individual if you actually pay attention to what he says. And he does this in order to draw a clear line of distinction between Nazi ideology and that of Marxism which he says denigrates the individual. He didn’t view individualism and statism as in conflict because that’s not how authoritarian nationalists think. This doesn’t fit the libertarian world view at all but it does have a history dating back at least to the French Revolution. Napoleon did the same thing. In contrast to the Bourbon monarchs who called themselves kings of France he made an important distinction and naming himself emperor of the “French.” And like Hitler he claimed to be a defender of individual rights even as an authoritarian dictator.
1
@jluvs2ride No I’m not. Unlike you I understand the history of both and that they have a common origin in the European enlightenment. Hence they have common principles which you keep either ignoring or don’t have the ability to understand. But Marx and Engels don’t just appear out of the blue unrelated to leftist thought before contemporaneous or after them.
1

Previous
14
Next
...
All