Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @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
  2. 4
  3. 4
  4. 4
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. ​ @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
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 4
  22. 4
  23. 4
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26. 4
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30.  @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
  31. 4
  32. 4
  33. 4
  34. 4
  35. 4
  36. 4
  37. 4
  38. 4
  39. 4
  40. 4
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43.  @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
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4