Comments by "Hermit Oldguy" (@hermitoldguy6312) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
551
-
418
-
340
-
102
-
82
-
70
-
67
-
63
-
43
-
34
-
33
-
29
-
23
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
That's called "appeal to selected evidence."
That you single out 1933 suggests that your claim is not true for 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939.
That you point to "size" of the army, suggests your claim is not true for warships, war aircraft, tanks, etc, - the "strength" of Poland's military - for
1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, and even 1933.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Brandon_37 Jim Bo knows it's a lie. He's just trying to rationalize the fact of the German starvation of Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania, and so on, and so on.
Germany, along with Japan and Italy, were responsible for food shortages around the world. When millions of men are having to fight, food production falls. Thus Germany, Japan and Italy caused the famine in Bengal.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Germans did go East - to Poland (1sep39), and France declared war (3sep39), attacked Germany (9sep39), withdrew (16sep39).
What's notable is that Russia did not assist her long-time ally, France, but either seized the opportunity to profit, or prepared for German attack, by invading
Poland (17sep39), Estonia (after 28sep39), Latvia (after 5oct39), & Lithuania (after 10oct39).
So the question of "what if Germany hadn't attacked France" is moot: France attacked Germany. The interesting "what if" is "what if France hadn't declared war on Germany?" They had several good reasons not to; the terrible losses from WWI, the lack of preparation for another war, the Maginot line, the incompleteness of the Maginot line, the West Wall, ...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You question is better phrased as "how does one create wealth"?
1.Invest things that are cheap eg, time and skill, to transform low value items into high value items. Eg., take a lump of stone and hammer it into the shape of a building block.
2. Move goods from where they are common (low value) to where they are rare (high value). Eg, Spanish oranges to UK, African bananas to Norway.
3. Dig it out of the ground.Eg., gold, diamonds, oil, etc.
4. Get your friends to talk you up. Then you can ask a much higher price for your inexpensive goods. Eg., dresses, paintings, music.
Once you've created some wealth, you can invest it in more expensive ventures, eg smelting ore to make iron.
And invest those profits in even more expensive ventures, eg railways.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TIK, some people climb Mount Everest - it's difficult, dangerous, expensive, and often
fatal. Why do people do that: simply to be able to say they did it? Seems pointless to me.
Now then, you're halfway up a figurative Mount Everest, and it's undoubtedly been difficult, expensive, and so on. You're probably asking yourself what are you doing, and what is the point. What you are doing is amassing, collating, evaluating and presenting the collective knowledge of an important part of history in an accessible way: a way that aids the further study of those events.
And what is the point of that? Well, what is the over-all lesson of World War II? I'd suggest it this: if you devote the whole of your resources to destroying your neighbours, you will most likely destroy yourself. (That's open to debate, obviously. ;)
So, then, had Hitler watched your videos, and seen the ultimate futility of the course he set himself - and his nation - perhaps he might've been dissuaded from that plan. Had Hitler stopped at Poland - as tragic as that would've been - it might've saved 30-40 million lives and 3 or 4 years of war in a dozen different nations.
By telling the stories of the monstrous stupidities of the past, you're helping to prevent them from happening again - and that's worth doing!
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If we put aside the Marxist redefinitions and start from scratch ...
In the beginning - before law, every man was his own master. Farmers need peace in order to grow crops and prosper. To have peace, you need law, and to enforce law, you need a collective (that can overpower any law-breakers). Any law takes power from individuals and transfers it to the collective.
Thus the political left and right were born. The left is the power of the state, the right the power of the individual. (An individual has no authority over others and cannot be an authoritarian.)
Hence politics is the pratice of writing laws, and is done mostly by lawyers. The right always loses because it's composed of individuals championing the liberties of the individual.
The left, championing the cause of the collective to take more and more powers, is de facto authoritarian. Thus the ratchet of power inexorably moves to the left - the state. Only real democracy - hearing the voice of the people - can slow its progress (keyword).
Once in a while a law is repealed - eg, decriminalizing of homosexuality, drugs, etc.,
but it's rare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I understand that you chose land because it is the one form of property that is not (usually) made. My argument is not invalidated by it: land itself is not a "means of production", it must be prepared; cleared, drained, hedged, ploughed, tilled, fertilised, etc. - that requires capital.
On 25th December 1066, All England belonged to one man - King William I. He stole it, but nevertheless, he held it and no-one could make him give it back. He disposed of most of it as gifts (to his lords, the Church, etc). That is the basis of all property rights here, today. The property rights of the land I own derives from that.
Feudalism is irrelevant - a strawman you raised only for the purpose of having something to knock down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So far as I can see capitalism is about the creation of wealth and socialism is about the use of wealth.
I define capitalism as the wise use of wealth to create more wealth. The basic unit of wealth is food (or energy), so capitalism is a product of nature. The Cheetah must gain more energy from its food than it used in catching it - and that's true for all animals. To survive, you must gain as much as you use. To grow, you must gain more than you use. To feed the wife and kids, you must gain even more. To improve your standard of living, you must gain even more. To contribute to social capital projects (eg, roads) you must gain even more.
I define Socialism as the distribution of wealth to maximise the common good. The family unit is socialist; dad creates the wealth, mum distributes it according to need, etc..
The first problem that arises is that dads must compete in their efforts to garner wealth. Nature says "kill thy neighbour, steal his stuff." Competition breeds conflict, and conflict destroys wealth. Otoh, nature says "many hands make light work," and "your neighbours' kids are your own kids future spouses". Peace is desirable, so regulation of competition (and violence) is desirable - ie "government".
How much government do men want/need? None = anarchy. Little = liberalism. Lots = fascism. All = absolute tyranny. That's the realm of politics - the degree to which we will enslave ourselves to spite each-other.
Capitalism and socialism are not competing economic systems. The antithesis of capitalism is waste (the broken window fallacy.) The antithesis of socialism is waste. (Give the kids an equal share of dad's profits and they'll just buy sweets and toys.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Speaking as someone with long experience of internet debates, ...
Truth is not established by debate - consensus is.
Name-calling is psychological warfare; if your opponent is insulting you, it's not a debate.
Just because you seek the truth, does not mean your opponent does too. Proselytes do not engage you to learn, but to teach.
Most importantly, they lie about socialism's history because they are trying to do it again!
Speaking as a radio engineer (ret.d), the electric field (pun) is young, and full of jargon - conventional words used in strange new ways. In ac, the electrons go back and forth, in dc they all go one way, so in my understanding, Gleichschaltung is like rectification, but I would use the term "conditioning".
We are in a new Gleichschaltung - and have been for a long time. They want to destroy the family, so they're trying to take away family-related words, eg; woman, mother, father, etc.
They call us racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, transphobic, etc, - which all mean "shut up".
How many times a day do you hear these words; net zero, equity, sustainable, diversity, ...?
We are constantly bombarded with such socialist propaganda - that's conditioning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sethfrisbie3957 This is not an insult. You are a confused child. I repeat, not an insult. You want a beneficent dictator - a "superman", who is kind to you and ruthless to your enemies. The reason it's not an insult is because it's the ideal - it's what everyone would choose - were it a real choice. You want to be ruled by your dad. it's the same psychology as with "gods". If your father was kind, you imagine "god" is kind. If your father was strict, you imagine "god" is strict.
To grow up, is to understand there are no "gods", and dictators are never beneficent.
To want a dictator is to want to be told what to wear, what to eat, where to work, when to go to bed, what to think, etc.
To be a grown up is to want to govern yourself.
The balance of power between you and the State is the left/right dichotomy. There cannot be an "authoritarian right wing" because that would be you ordering yourself around.
Authoritarianism comes naturally to us,because it's how we raise our children - we don't let them govern themselves. Consequently the State strives to treat us as children, and some of us are comfortable with that. But tyranny has a ratchet that does not exist in families. In families, children are encouraged to grow up and make their own choices. The State never willingly returns the freedoms it takes from you.
As for economics, there is only one way to create wealth and that's capitalism. The State does not create wealth, it steals it from you (some taxation is necessary),and concerns itself with how to spend what it has collected.
Capitalism is, btw, a law of nature. The leopard must get more energy from her food than she used to catch it,or she will die. That's true for all animals, and even plants. Unfortunately,theft and parasitism are also laws of nature.
I've covered a lot in few words - some thought will be required.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dave5843-d9m Yes, utter nonsense. You're pretending the bombing of Dresden was something impressively big when it was relatively trivial.
To make your ludicrous claim, you are ignoring most of WWII; the defeat of Axis forces in North Africa, the liberation of Sicily, and France - which made the Dresden attack possible - and Belgium, and Luxembourg, and you're ignoring the far larger bombing campaigns against other German cities; Cologne, Essen, Hamburg, Frankfurt, etc.
That's an astonishing level of ignorance!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These are the facts:
1. all governments, in all places, at all times, are bad - their every act is an imposition on the people; they tax, outlaw, impede and sabotage.
2. since every government is detrimental, the entire history of governance is a history of enslavement and impoverishment.
3. Where the people flourish - as people generally do, it is DESPITE government's best efforts to resist.
Thus it is obvious, that the less a government can do, the less harm it can cause. A weak government, or as I would rather say, a strong opposition is the best the people can hope for.
Don't imagine this puts nations in danger from external enemies: in the event of war, it is political practice that the party in opposition ceases to oppose, and instead supports the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1