Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
@herrhiterminator8149 Ok, no problem. First off, that isn't really the case. For one, nationalism doesn't always relate to ethnicity, in fact some nationalist movements are openly multi-ethnic. Nationalism is defined as "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." Most nations contain multiple ethnic groups. In any case, nationalist systems don't all want to gain control over their people or nation, although that isn't uncommon, that's just how political desires work. People want to actually be able to put them into practice. Also, nationalism isn't an economic or social "system," its an inclination, a belief. One cannot "implement" nationalism, and there is no one nationalist tendency or system. But the thing is, socialism isn't just "when the people work for a supposedly common good." Especially given the nazis didn't really care about the "civilian's good," when said civilians were being thrown in camps, in jail, or just generally suppressed and oppressed by the nazi government. Nationalism and Socialism tend to actually not get along that well. In any case, conservatism can absolutely be totalitarian. Conservatives supported the rise of the nazis, and social conservatism is a deeply intrusive ideology that is more often than not held up by the state or organized institutions like the church. In any case, conservatism, like nationalism, isn't really a "system" you can implement. There are literally hundreds of different types of conservative notions and ideologies.
And the reason for that last thing is because... why would they? Those most likely to revolt, the political dissidents or minority groups, were already being oppressed and thrown into prisons and camps. The remaining people, if they kept their heads down, could attempt to live safely among the nazis. They didn't revolt because they didn't want to risk it.
4
-
@herrhiterminator8149 According to who? It just sounds like you're saying that different ethnicities can't work together based on your own beliefs, not nationalist ones. I mean, being honest, there really is no such thing a a concrete description of a race or ethnicity. What we now consider white is made up of tens of different nationalities and ethnicities, and yet white supremacists think all white people can get along. I agree that nationalism must be openly hostile to "others," but those others don't have to be racial others, they can simply be people with other ideas, or people from other countries. And that's the problem with nationalism - that when they start throwing people in jail, they stop counting them as people. So the "ingroup," there, is an ever-shifting group with no defined borders. There were plenty of "aryan" germans being thrown in camps, because they opposed the nazis, because they were physically or mentally disabled, because they were gay, or old, or inured, ect. The nazis hated far more than just other races. And fair, if you wanted to point out the difference between one specific conservative ideology and a purely nationalist ideology, that's fine, and thank you for clearing that up in the end.
And no problem, i'm glad we could agree on that point, which applies a lot to many different scenarios, not just this one specifically, but anyway, you're welcome!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheImperatorKnight We know, mate. Nobody knows what socialism is but you, and it doesn't once occur to you that if socialists have a different definition of socialism than you, and universally push said definition, that your association fallacy falls apart. But yes, given that you don't understand what socialism is I have to agree that what you just described (even if it was an accurate representation) is not socialist, and does not discount the fact that the nazis were not socialists, considering all of their ideological roots, associations, policies, rhetorical tactics, the list goes on.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheImperatorKnight Wow, you really are an idiot. The left is calling for less military, less surveillance, less intervention, less of a police state, less government ability to pry into your life for the causes of "counter-terrorism," less corporate support by the government, less tax cuts for the rich, ect. Half of the things you're calling for, things like "central planning," and "central banks" the majority of the left is against. Others, like collective control of the means of production are only called for by a specific part of the left. And hell, parts like democracy, state education, and democracy are called for by both the left and right. Hell, you literally think that it's only the left calling for an organized society. If anything, historically, we can determine that the right has always been far more conducive to totalitarianism, and as the world has moved leftwards he have learned of the concepts of liberty, freedom, equality, ect. It really is sad how you push this baseless myth that is so easily countered.
No, actions matter more than words. And when most of the left is calling for a smaller state in most respects, and a large portion of people don't even want a state, you can not reasonably say that Left=Big, Right=Small. Can't wait for the incoming no true scotsman.
You're losing credibility by the second.
4
-
@discipleofdagon8195
As I said, I'm not interested in random pieces of rhetoric, but reality. All your response is, is just that. Random rhetoric, half remembered from other sources that made arguments you can't fully recall, and certainly not make any points in favor of now. I would ask you how the goal of social ownership requires a change to the very process of human thought, especially given it seems based in human thought and history to begin with, but it's clear you wouldn't have an answer even if I did. I don't care about utopia, and I don't care about the random collections of disparate policy that you call socialist and label utopian without a second thought, trying to merely associate it with that they disagree with and thus reject it. I believe, as I have been shown, the vast majority of people in this comment section act not because they believe in any sort of preservation of history, but because they believe in the preservation of their own ideological narrative. I need no platform to hold beliefs, but as of now, there is no downside to my speech so i'll take it. What you need to understand is that these people do not have "mixed views on what I believe," they have extremely strong views on what they project onto me and assume I believe in.
I don't care about your opinion on socialism, apparently I need to remind everyone I ever speak to in this god awful comment section that not everyone who disagrees with you is a socialist. As for the criticisms of socialism I have heard though, yours is one I cannot allow it go unquestioned, given that it weakens any anti-socialist arguments as a whole. What about social ownership requires going "full ingsoc?" What about collective ownership requires a full reworking of the human mind? The answer is quite simply put, nothing. Socialism to you is a boogeyman, an ideology defined not by policy, but by relation to your moral system. That's not a rational argument, and never will be. Wake. Up.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@phillip3495
I hate to break it to you, but over-application of accusations of fallacy, especially when said accusations are made in such absurd circumstances, are not arguments. You assert that believing historians is an "argument from authority." Now, the problem with your line of "logic" is that it isn't logical at all. Is it a fallacy to randomly claim that a person that is well known or an authority in one thing is always correct? Yes. Is it a fallacy to say that historians who spend decades studying a subject and publishing work to be peer-reviewed and fact checked might know what they're talking about? No.
You are literally having this argument because you would prefer to believe a youtube video than the very sources it cites, because you would prefer to believe your ideology is correct than deal with the fact that it absolutely isn't. Historians generally know history. Sorry?
Your whole argument is that you are the sole arbiter of what "actual knowledge is," and coincidentally, it's whatever you happen to agree with, no matter how many mental hoops you have to jump through to justify it. Are there people who dedicated time to a subject, only to be wrong about it? Sure, there's a few in every thousand of experts, which are quickly weeded out and fact checked. Is that a good reason to dismiss the findings of hundreds of different figures that all easily refute your denialism? Nope.
4
-
@phillip3495
Child, just saying something over and over doesn't make it true. I've presented arguments, i've presented historical facts, and i've refuted your assertions. I have not once argued from authority, which even you admit. You, on the other hand, cannot rebut me, so you defer to a fallacy of fallacies in order to run away.
You have not presented a counter to my arguments, in fact, you pretend they don't exist. You have not refuted them because you cannot refute them.
So of course, I have the argument here. You are, in your own words, the "one with the assertion," the one with the baseless statement you have presented without logic, argumentation, and evidence, and expected everyone to rebut. Of course, nobody need sink to that level, one could simply point out that your argument has no evidence or argumentation and thus isn't worth a rebuttal, but I went the extra mile and effortlessly disproved you. We're in a debate, and you lost a while ago, given you inability to respond.
Child, i'm still waiting for a single rebuttal.
4
-
4
-
@polpol2739
I'm sorry, none of that is at all true.
His writings are full of hatred directed towards socialism and internationalism, and praise towards the processes of capitalism in his country, especially the supposedly superior german industries. He did not seize the means of production, nor did he distribute it, unless you count the distribution of Weimar-era public property into private hands.
He used Christianity, and I am fine admitting that as a person raised by Christians, and his morality had nothing to do wth liberalism. Christianity was one of his chief tools.
I'm sorry, this is just wrong. The only right wing thing about hitler was... well, everything about him, his nationalism, his economics, his social views, and so on. He was in no way anywhere but the far right, much less "totaly (sic) left socialist" as you assert, a statement reflecting the opposite of reality.
4
-
@polpol2739
Exactly. You denying the truth over and over does not make your statements any less false. His writings, as quoted here, show his far right anti-socialist bias, and show the deeply right wing opinions that he held, hence his allying with capitalists and allowing capitalism to proceed in his nation. Denying this with no evidence, as you continue to do, is quite silly, especially given your lack of coherent response that seems to be all too consistent with your replies.
He competed with the left because he was opposed to them, and at the same time defended and upheld the right because he was in favor of them.
His traditionalism was one constructed on the basis of Christian faith, and comparing his words to another deeply conservative religion that conservatives use as a strawman doesn't change that. Christianity is far from peaceful, hence, him using it as a weapon.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@glennchartrand5411 I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, but that is all just false. First off, the 25 Point Program was a piece of propaganda, that hitler said he has no plans of implementing to his own party officials. Also, it is pretty disgusting to compare a jewish man that lost family in the holocaust and a far right dictator that committed it.
Nationalism is "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."
Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
So in short, national "socialism" isn't socialism at all, nor did the "race" control the means of production. Pretty basic stuff.
Hitler told his base "when I say socialism, I mean nationalism." Hitler told them he would protect their business. Hitler told them he would make their nation... great again. And to the socialists, hitler did nothing less than order their execution. I don't think you realize that in nazi germany, the far right was mainstream, and the far left was repressed at every chance.
Its funny how you seem unable to even give a definition of the ideology you call socialism, choosing instead to lump in a bunch of fundamentally different governments and call the whole thing "socialism." And when I say funny, I mean sad. The only people who still believe TIK's lies are people who are extremely good at lying to themselves and ignoring facts.
Its a cult.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@OntologicalQuandry Oh, sure. He's seemed plenty appreciative of other people as well, including a literal holocaust denier. He also has an unfortunate habit of calling me a post-modernist marxist racist anti-semite, and no I am not making that up, he can agree with calling me every single one of those things.
He created the video, but beyond that, has had... quite some issues with substantiating it. When his points are addressed, he tends to insult before he responds, and that's if he responds at all with anything more than a copy pasted response or a link to another one of his videos. The thing is, i have watched the video. I've been arguing in this comment section for weeks, it would be stupid of me not to have. However, you don't have to agree with him because you watched the video,and the points I brought up,though he addressed them, still show how he is wrong. I know you wish to invalidate all criticism behind the label of "but you didn't watch the video" and it doesn't work. If you can't argue on your own terms and merits and have to use the video, one that is objectively wrong, as a crutch than you really didn't have an argument to begin with.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@travisadams6279
Jesus fuck, here I thought you were bad and then you go proving me right further. Capitalism is a statist system, and nazi germany was a fundamentally anti-socialist system that prided private ownership and called for the means of production to be primarily in their hands, while denying the notion that the means of production should be owned socially under any means. The state was not running all business, nor did hitler want it to, as that went against his idea of racial superiority. Also, state control isn't socialism. Furthermore, you then hilariously assert the fucking idiotic notion that "state is also interchangeable with people, or collective." The fuck are you talking about? A dictator does not represent the people or the collective. A state can represent the people as a whole, but saying that hitler was synonymous with the victims of the holocaust is absurd. You argue that the nazis had state control of the economy (false) and state means the people (also false, dictators are not supported by their victims) then using that to assert that some people had control, so it must be socialist.. (Again, absurd, and false.) You keep trying to hold onto this "different types of socialism" argument, but in trying to ahistorically broaden the definition of socialism to include far right anti-socialists like nazis, you've included literally all ideologies. Socialism is based not on just one random collective, but on the collective as a whole.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@travisadams6279
I have genuinely never before seen such a completely absurd and unsupported string of claims as the one you make here, and it's fucking baffling.
You are literally lying with every fiber of you being and it's sad, so let's go one by one. First off, nazis never outlawed private property. Yours is a claim not even TIK makes. In 1933, the nazis removed a right to private property from their state legal documents. You don't need a right to housing to own a house, don't need a right to healthcare to get a doctor, and you don't need some random government document to say the words "private property" in order to own and manage private property, which was happening under and with the support of the nazi regime. Secondly, non-private property isn't automatically "communal" property. You're literally saying that if a single dictator took something into state ownership, then it belongs to the community, which is absurd. Furthermore, the community of "aryans" under the nazis had no economic power, they were victims of the oppressive regime. You continue to say "nazis/aryans" or "nazis/general public," which is absurdly disgusting. The nazis were not supported by their populations or the general public, nor did they support thse groups in kind. You, evidently, have never read their laws. They didn't care about the good of the general public, they were literally throwing them in death camps. Furthermore, the state was always used as a last resort, for failure of private property in wartime critical and absolutely necessary cases.
4
-
@travisadams6279
Yes, I did, hence you finding my comments there and my bloody comments in the video itself. Jesus fuck are you people able to realize that people can read your bibles and still refute them?
He shows vague definitions and then attempts to piece them together, again, through association fallacies. His readings of the definitions make no sense, and are not reflected anywhere but his own extremist views. For example, one can count the amount of nations, countries, and states on the planet. It isn't even that high a number. However, TIK argues that for example, since the definition of nation is "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory," any united groups of people can be considered a "nation," and thus have a state and government. This is, of course, absurd, for the reason primarily that the definition in question is meant to describe nations that are verified through other means, not perscribe random groups into being nations. Again, association fallacies.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4