Comments by "" (@12q8) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. I don't think you have an obligation to get through those people. Deceit or emotional appeal is not really a good idea, because that would just take them to another cult. People need to just not be afraid of other opinions and accept that they might be wrong. At some point seeking the truth, I just got to this realization. If I am seeking the truth, and there is no guarantee that I hold a truth, then I should not get attached to anything I hold. Nothing is holy.
    106
  2. That last bit about cultish language is actually quite interesting. It applies to other aspects of life beyond cults. Even detecting manipulative behavior, especially language, exhibited by some people. Whether it is to appear to others as victims, shift the blame, etc. manipulative language in personal relationships of all sorts has the same effects.
    75
  3. Of course! Why would the state teach something that would scrutinize and jeopardize its authority? Lol.
    31
  4. Honestly, all the mysticism that historians often painted on Nazi Germany also made me fascinated. Made it seem like an engima, when really it all stems from contradictions planted in my head by Marxist historians coming up with illogical and contradicting arguments for why it is different and unique.
    19
  5. “Strength in Numbers” refers to the same concept I believe you mentioned in your Hitler’s Socialism video. The individual sacrificing his or her individuality to be part of the group, the collective, to achieve socialist goals. I can’t remember if you gave it a name or simply described it.
    17
  6. The same thing in China with Mao.
    16
  7. My dad has so much self-hatred, altruistic morality system, was an abusive father, self-sacrificial (he never bought something good for himself), worked for a charity up to retirement, and had a gullible and ignorant mother, but the faith that took over was traditional religious faith rather than a communist one. And honestly, any interaction with him feels like it is smearing me with his behaviors. It is contagious of sorts. Especially since he was my own authority figure growing up, and it is still part of my subconscious. It has a very overt mental-blunting effect. I cannot think straight at all after any interaction with him. It is quite astonishing how much it affects me personality, and still does. I do not think he consciously and willingly is trying to destroy my self-image, rather it is a mental disease that memetically spreads.
    14
  8.  @ferdinanddaratenas3447  Too recent to be history. Lol.
    11
  9. Yes. That is called realism in international relations study, iirc.
    9
  10. You've actually helped me a lot. I kind of reached the point of appreciating free markets before I discovered you, but I never had the socialist/leftist pov ever shown its faults, so there were a lot of moments I felt like I would go back, but then someone linked your private and public video, and it really opened my eyes. I felt like the fog in my head went away. Suddenly, I had a consistent world view that didn't give excuses, but valid reasons and rational explanations.
    8
  11. Yes. People are ideologically motivated when they make a "who to trust and who not to trust" list. No different from religion apologists.
    6
  12. Wow, FDR very much reminds me of Bush talking about national security. Slippery slope, and scaring people to believe in some never-ending maddening hostility of the dictator. Next thing he would claim is WMDs in Germany if they hadn't entered the war. Lol.
    6
  13. Leonard Darwin is right to some extent. I recall reading that before the Industrial Revolution, most people’s children died before reaching adulthood. The only places where that was the opposite is the monarchy, and such higher classes. These families, as they grew, would have members fall down to the lower classes, feeding their genetic pool. So to a degree, we are all the descendants of monarchy.
    6
  14. Yeah, live debates are awful. It becomes a match on who can provoke the other emotionally and make them slip competition.
    6
  15. That's an interesting insight. I am not sure how accurate it is, but their politicians seem more than eager to step over their population to grow their GDP. They're playing a race with their ever growing debt that they need to inflate their economy regardless to pay off their debt and maintain the percentage of debt to GDP.
    5
  16. You can even go all through history for multi-cultural empires that collapsed.
    5
  17. Sometimes, I don't realize how much the world was deceived by ideological historians until I watch your videos. It really left the world in a state of confusion and fanatical beliefs in ideology over facts because those facts were purposely hid and covered. Thanks.
    4
  18. Yeah, usually, if you make it past adulthood back then, you lived a normal lifespan, up to the 60s and 70s. Otherwise, grandparents would have been thought of as 30 year olds.
    4
  19. Quora is filled with people asking trolling controversial questions baiting people to write long self-righteous essays on why their position is better than others, sparking arguments in the comments.
    4
  20.  @pax6833  You don't usually hear about those, because they typically were small and regional. Modern transportation paved the way for many of people to easily move, without having to risk surviving on foot for weeks or months.
    4
  21. ​ @walterbailey2950  Obviously. TIK covered that a bunch and explained how when it comes to the economics side of things, Historians are no experts, which is why a lot of non-Marxist historians just went along with the Marxists historians with their "Nazis are far right" catchphrase. TIK covers it comprehensively in his long Hitler is a socialist video. Arguably, it doesn't matter who says what. You look at the evidence. When price controls, taxes on businesses, and huge manipulations and interventions in the market is employed, opposite to a free market, then that puts you on the left side. Regardless of how many people call that system "far-right." It is rather this confusion that creates convoluted and illogical theories, like the "horse shoe" theory, which states that the far left and far right meet at their ends, instead of being opposite ends of a linear continuum, or the "communism-to-nazism" pipeline and vice versa. Because ultimately, they are simply moving from one version of socialism, to another.
    3
  22.  @walterbailey2950  Who is talking about conservatism? You're going on off about something that I never even mentioned. You must be new here if you think this channel is "pro-conservative."
    3
  23. ​ @walterbailey2950  Take your pills, and take a deep breath.
    3
  24.  @walterbailey2950  Even after your pills you're still snarky? Maybe one day you'll have the guts to watch TIK's video and maybe try and make up your mind on it. If your ideas are so fragile that you're afraid a video will "convert" you, then perhaps you can't really support your ideas.
    3
  25. ​ @walterbailey2950  You thought this channel was about conservatism until yesterday.
    3
  26. Interestingly, Lenin wasn't the only one to rebrand the peasants as the real proletariats. Mao did the same thing, Vietnam also iirc.
    3
  27.  @widehotep9257  Adding "debunked" to your sentences doesn't really add weight to your point. Rather adds to its insubstantiality. A concise explanation would have sufficed.
    3
  28. ​ @TheImperatorKnight  There is no way to make them listen, per se, but time shall do its work for anyone that looks for the evidence. People like to be divorced from reality, as it gives them fuzzy good feelings about the world, e.g. religion. So most won't listen, because you're robbing them of the belief of being better than others, or caring for others.
    3
  29. I think the Swastika is there because even modern fascists and neo-nazis can’t tell the difference between National Socialism and Fascism.
    3
  30.  @walterbailey2950  It's really a simple fact. Right implies liberal free markets, and left implies state control of the economy. In the early 19th century, when liberalism was very popular, conservatism was the biggest and most leftist until socialists gained momentum, as they valued order over liberty. Part of this order was intervening in the economy, which they did and still do. Not sure why you associate conservatism with liberalism when they were and are rivals from the very start, or the idea that liberalism implies idealizing conservatism? I don't see how that can work.
    2
  31.  @walterbailey2950  I don't think I understand what you're saying.
    2
  32.  @walterbailey2950  No, Nazis did not co-opt anything. One of the biggest matters of discourse among socialists in the 20th century was whether to have a nationalist or internationalist outlook. You can watch TIK's video on the differences between fascism and national socialism for more on the topic. As for big government, you are again using historical outdated left and right, which differ on what they stand for based how far back we are talking and where. There is no rewriting of history. I explained one comment above what how ultimately left and right should be defined based on, and what I think is more consistent. This means that "right-wing" royalists in France in the 18th century are statists, pro-big government, which makes them left wing, just like socialists are, and liberal anti-royalists would be right-wing. Irrelevent of their position in the national assembly at the time, and irrespective of their contemporary ideas. Does this make sense? Having a continuum based on the size of government, as I explained in a previous comment, is more practical and objective regardless of the time in history or what different ideologies claim to be. I'd suggest TIK's video on Public vs Private for more information.
    2
  33. ​ @walterbailey2950  You still don't get what I am saying or engaging at all. You're too distracted trying to call things buzzwords when you're missing any point I am making. For example, I just explained my logic a few posts ago, and you just flat out dismissed it and went on driveling instead of engaging.
    2
  34. ​ @walterbailey2950  It's all so tiresome. At this point, I am not sure if you'll ever understand a word I am saying. Since it seems construing my words is all you're good at.
    2
  35. ​ @walterbailey2950  There you go again. You know what? Forget it. Replace every time I used "right" with libertarian, and "left" with authoritarian since you're so hung up on left-right.
    2
  36.  @walterbailey2950  The proposition is rather valid. I already told you I don't disagree with left-right historical origins. I just think it's irrelevant. You're just insistent on applying this outdated continuum for contemporary politics and using it to bring unfounded assertions of libertarians being pro-conservatism or that libertarians will bring about some form of fascism based purely on these outdated political classification theories. I might as well have said the left end is reserved for no state, and the right is for complete state control. I swapped them since socialists and Marxists have co-opted the term left for themselves when they are authoritarian. I offered my reasons, but you just refused to engage. But I digress. How do you think anarchy will bring about authoritarianism? Not why, but rather the mechanism.
    2
  37. Schools are state-sponsored indoctrination.
    2
  38. Every Christian has his own imagination of what Christianity is and what it means. It means something personally unique to every single one of them. Every religion is like that. A bunch of undecipherable gobbledygook that there even scholars cannot fully comprehend what books written through millennia means as a whole. Otherwise, there would be one specific denomination, even religion, that is simple enough that everyone would immediately and naturally realize is the only logical one. It is the same thing with communists with nothing being "real communism", because it cannot be defined in such a way to mean one clear idea. Yet any questioning of any aspect of it is immediately rejected. Because, just like religion, it is the "ultimate" "good."
    2
  39. Even before the revolution, Tsar Nicholas was trying to industrialize Russia to catch up with the West but did that via state-interventions rather than freeing the markets. State-owned enterprises dominated and led the industrial sectors of the economy, like railways, mining, and heavy industry. All with the bureaucracy and inefficiencies of the state. The taxation system used in late Tsarist Russia also disproportionately affected the peasantry.
    2
  40. A socialist linked your video elsewhere claiming that you were implying the military should be privatized, and that you "lost it". Lol.
    2
  41. I think he mentioned in his last video in the series, or perhaps another video, that the blockade had little to do with the economic collapse. It perhaps made some products more expensive, but it wasn't the culprit, rather the German government's scapegoat.
    2
  42. Over a hundred years ago, most businesses were small and most employees were self-employed. This is no longer the case. So, what is the modern era of big business is? Is it still capitalism?
    2
  43. This is pretty good.
    2
  44. "But I really really want to believe you're wrong and my ideal definition of socialism is what is true!" :^)
    2
  45. The video on economics linked has been removed.
    2
  46. I think he was just exaggerating on and on, and just painting them as ultra-wealthy people that never work and just relax at the most expensive spots. Yellow boots could be used because back then, leather was generally found in darker tones, to hide imperfections, so yellow, being quite bright, is a sign of wealth, and also not ones used for work, so they are bright and not dirty means that the owner is wealthy.
    2
  47. I can never have enough of your videos.
    2
  48. ​ @admontblanc  if you are finding a leader in debates, and not ideas, then you probably need a few independent thoughts.
    2
  49.  @admontblanc  I guess your infatuation with debates is due to your lack of reading comprehension.
    2
  50. After reading the core ideas of Marx: historical materialism, and how he thinks it unfolded through history, I came to realize the same. His idea is that once a specific stage "matures" the classes will instinctively revolt. Eventually leading to communism. Lenin, instead, thought that the revolution had to be instigated to move to the next stage. So, Lenin already from the get go, goes against the ideas of Marx.
    2
  51. When I took the class on international politics in college, the professor said that before WW1, the world was mostly realists. They believed that for peace to prosper, no nation should have the edge in weaponry, which is a prisoner's dilemma when it comes to armimant. That was the philosophy of most world leaders back then. After WW1, the world liberals took over mostly in Western powers with their world view, and argued that WW1 happened because there was no platform for the world to discuss and talk with each other, which started the League of Nations. However, not all European powers joined or were invited. Germany even left 9 months of Hitler taking power. USSR was expelled on December 14, 1939. "In October 1933, some nine months after Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany, the German government announced its withdrawal from the League of Nations. The ostensible reason was the refusal of the Western powers to acquiesce in Germany’s demands for military parity." He also said that after WW2, there was a neorealist and neoliberalist approach mostly, and since the 1990, it has been neoliberal as the dominant factor.
    2
  52. ​ @walterbailey2950  Yeah, if we're speaking historically, I agree. Right and left changed throughout. Originally it meant where they were positioned in the national assembly in France, where royalists were on the right side and anti-royalists on the left. However, trying to use this outdated continuum causes confusions like libertarians being "pro-conservatism", and that authoritarianism can be in "both ends" and working from that theory to place socialist competing ideologies in different parts of the spectrum when they ultimately would agree in their end goals, organizing social and economic affairs. Socialism, co-opting the "left" off its historical meaning, when it stands for collectivism, state planning, community control of the individual, is something libertarians would stand against. This is why I think left (total government) and right (no government) is more relevant and consistent.
    1
  53. I wonder if the reason why he separated NS and German Workers party is because he thinks they are the "true" representatives of German workers, and a continuation of the original DAP. Basically, NS is an evolution of the DAP. It is emphasizing the work with the nationalism attached that he thinks complements it? Or it could be that he sees NS as something else, a creed or religion of sorts, not a political party like the DAP.
    1
  54. > If there is a market for a state, can we really deny the market? > As soon as one person wants a state, that need is met by an entrepreneur. In that case, it would still be a voluntary association. If it tried to enforce anything, it would be hard since everyone would be against it. States, if we can call them that, would be voluntary subscription-based, where you pay a company for a package of services they can provide instead of being forced to. Since we don’t live in a world where we all share the same values and as rational, humans are fallible, it would be hard to maintain a world wide ancapistan. Banditry will exist, for example, and that would open a market for security. Currently, that market is a monopoly by the United States. It is part of a historical deal. Would be a good topic for a video. Somali pirates have stock markets for their activities. One way to look how it would play out, outside of idealistic ancap views, think of moral nihilism, anarchist egoism (Max Stirner), and free markets. There would be a market for everything. Literally everything. It opens the door for a lot of ideas for novels. Think of a society where gladiators still exist in the modern world, and people bet on who is going to win or get killed, in some city known for hosting those events, similar to how people see Las Vegas as the place for casinos. While on the other side of the world, people would see this as something against their moral values, and such businesses would not exist. As long as it is voluntary, there is no problem with it. Some would have careers as gladiators, fans globally, and people following them like sports nowadays. Capitalism has a narrower definition than free-market, despite ancaps using it to mean that. Capitalism refers more to the process of going to capital markets to collect capital, typically as loans, to start a business. Or at least that is how I understand it. Businesses could start in any shape or form in a free-market.
    1
  55. And that Germany did this because they thought that would mean the UK is forced to declare war on both. If Germany instead made it a secret agreement and "invaded" under the guise of liberating and aiding Poland, it probably would have played out differently.
    1
  56. A family that would split a once shared farmland would be obvious. More private units exist now. However, a growing family that maintains a shared farmland after it was once owned by a smaller family with one distinct owner, would really be where it gets to the cut-off on how the farm is being run now. It would still remain private if the father's will is for the eldest son to own the farm, or it would have a hierarchy or shared ownership, similar to how a corporation is run, where discussion, voting, or whatever method they use to reach a decision on running the farm, would be implemented. This would be a clear cut-off based on the situation and new mechanism used to run the property, for example. Do you have any opinions on this? Or does it not matter much to have an opinion on? I think perhaps the mechanism is where the cutoff is, but I don't think I've thought enough about it.
    1
  57. 19:10 Israel is a nation-state. I don't think nation here meant nation-state. A nation is something else in politics, generally defined as a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history. Israel, as a nation-state, carries the ethos of nationalism, which is to manufacture a nation out of ethnicities that share nothing but a religion and belief in ancient mythology, a process called "nation building." For example, modern Hebrew is made up from thousands of borrowed words from neighboring Semitic languages, because only a few hundred words survived from ancient Hebrew to form a language. Zionism existed before the birth of Nazism by decades. There is a whole rabbit hole of parallel development between nationalism, socialism, and Zionism, which is just manufacturing a Jewish nation out of a religion. It makes sense since back then, nationalism, colonialism, racism, etc. were all the rage. It would be rather shocking if Jewish people in Europe did not develop their own version or reaction. As secularism was on the rise, some Jewish people thought they could assimilate, but natives resisted that. Leading some to believe that Jewish people would not be respected unless they form a nation and a state for that nation. Basically what Herzl and many early Zionists believed. It's a whole rabbit hole. If you ever decide to dig deep into it, you'd be surprised and maybe not surprised by many things.
    1
  58. Yeah, I can see this in my own personal life. The same pattern would have emerged if I had not lost faith in everything including altruism, though I would argue some remnants remain subconsciously.
    1
  59. A nation and society differ solely on what the individuals that make up that society share among each other. It's basically where the gate is put. There is the academic definition of a nation, but that simply lists the criteria for what is shared among a society.
    1
  60. People still confuse history with opinions. No matter what you think, history is about the actions taken by others. What one thinks should have happened is not relevant.
    1
  61. Hitler was more coherent in his earlier speeches. Edit: ok, the yellow boots got me. Lol.
    1
  62. A weak state is a corrupt state. I won’t call 90s Russia ancap.
    1
  63. The only thing I know about the Freemasons is that they don't actually worship the Christian god, and (maybe) see him as evil (demiurge?). They believe they worship the "true" god of Solomon. Some say it is Osiris, some say it is some other ancient Egyptian god, or whatever. All they require to join is that you believe in some one god. I bet there are some good books out there, but I haven't looked into it.
    1
  64.  @widehotep9257  but the vast majority of the American money supply is digitally debited and credited to major banks via the Federal Reserve. They don't just make it themselves.
    1
  65. A lot of people are lost in the definitions, that's for sure, or are lost in the abstract concepts of socialism that they can't link it to reality, and invent their own ideals of these concept in their heads. "Public ownership of the means of production" being one. It feels nice to believe everyone would equally share basic goodies in life.
    1
  66.  @Xoruam  I think you're onto something. Sure, he might lose some leftists, but more people who appreciate the quality of his videos will come along and subscribe.
    1
  67. And wasn't only the German parts of Czechoslovakia given to Germany yet he invaded it all?
    1
  68. Damn, what religion is TIK talking about here?
    1
  69. Not anarchic in the chaotic sense?
    1
  70. Haven't watched the video yet, but I assume the US and the UK were more technologically advanced. Didn't the UK invent and use radar before the Axis? I would then put Nazi Germany in second place, and then either the USSR or Italy since I am not sure if Italy invented anything or maybe adapted German tech into its army.
    1
  71. The shareholders can also literally vote the CEO out.
    1
  72. ​ @gilgamesh310  Probably. The only cases I've heard of it happening are when a single shareholder owns over 50% of a company.
    1
  73. The problem of mono-ethinic states as implemented back then, or as they were called, nation-states, is that for many regions of the world, it would be impossible to draw borders such that nations have their own nation-states. For example, the Balkans have cities that are multi-ethnic, and drawing borders between the ethnic groups living in those cities such that you'd have a single, continious line that goes around is impossible. With its implementation, what ended up happening is ethnic minorities existing within the borders of newly created states, and those are easily targeted. The way self-determination was implemented back then was also mainly focused on trying to mitigate the chance of another war in Europe, which is why it was not implemented in the colonies.
    1
  74. It's still strange to think that heroin was sold as cough medicine back then too, among other drugs. I've heard the argument that the reason addiction wasn't a problem back then is because people used these drugs as prescribed, and did not abuse them. The culture back then also was definitely against being intoxicated.
    1
  75. Keynes added tons of confusion to what capitalism is.
    1
  76. I think I understand now Hitler's thinking process better than anyone who tried to explain it. Neo-Nazis were paranoid with their explanations throwing all sorts of Jew stuff, while commies labelled them as capitalists and obfuscated what that is. This helps connect all the dots.
    1
  77. The funniest part is that Nazis and Communists all try and claim that the other side is working with Wall St., using the same arguments too.
    1
  78. You're right, TIK. The 28 U.S. Code § 3002 - Definitions (15) uses "Federal corporation" to mean the United States. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002 If corporations meant a company or some business, then that definition wouldn't make sense. Your definition is the one that would make sense of this definition. The US is a federal collective body of states.
    1
  79. I watched some of those. Most made no sense without knowing the context when the speech was given.
    1
  80.  @Bluz1  I don’t see how that proved Darwin wrong. Can you explain?
    1
  81. You also must have gotten the arguments that boil to "b-b-b-but I need to buy a share to vote democratically in a corporation! Spending money is capitalism! Therefore, corporations are private!" People just want to believe that states are the borders and countries that exist today. It's a very simple abstraction of reality, often mistaught since childhood.
    1
  82. Institutions are also often just funds or companies that are publicly listed, that own shares of other publicly owned companies. Vanguard, one of the biggest investment management companies, is owned by its shareholders. From Investopedia: "Vanguard has a fairly unique structure for an investment management company. The company is owned by its funds; the funds are owned by the shareholders. Thus, the shareholders are the actual owners." This makes it a weird heirachal situation, where people invest in management companies that invest in other companies and then they decide how the company is run, on behalf of its owners. Often with their own beliefs on how other companies should be run. The owners are happy they are making money, but these companies have an immense influence built on trillions of dollars of other people's money.
    1
  83. I guess they keyword is hedonistic materialism. Because they would often argue that National Socialism can be embraced by any race, citing the different National Socialists in many other regions and races during the time.
    1
  84. I watched the video. You promised controversy. I found none. Lol!
    1
  85. The new title sounds very much like your original video's title. Lol.
    1
  86. Yeah, sorta, think of corporations as states within a state. They often compete with the state they're in and work around its legislation as much as they work with the state. It is not uncommon to see this theme in dystopian scifis where corporations take the place of a state once it collapses. The original private vs public video explains it quite clearly.
    1
  87. Free-Market Anarchism might be the better word?
    1
  88.  @LuzikArbuzik77  I don't think anyone is arguing against that.
    1
  89. Yeah, I really watch your videos because of how infomative they are. You don't really need to apologize. Whether the video was for them or randos online or whoever, I watch your videos because they are so informational. The citations are awesome as well. I've bought a few books you've cited directly because of your videos.
    1
  90. And Hitler built on that claiming that instead of it being a "historic coincidence" that it is Jewish nature they inherited for being a state-less nation.
    1
  91. Mussolini using Evola is a next level smart move. I find it hilariously simple and yet, ingenious!
    1
  92. >"If you don't call Hitler an insane gay transvestite with one testicle, who had Jewish and African ancestors and genes, and an atheist if you're Christian, or Christian/deist if you're an atheist, you're secretly a Nazi." This game of hot potato everyone is playing with Hitler as the big evil no one wants to associate with, creates nothing but an alienation of an accurate account of history in favor of ideological commitment to a group.
    1
  93. I think you mentioned whether Marxism needs a revolution in a previous video or I probably passed by it from other videos or read it somewhere, but iirc, Marxism simply states the inevitability of a revolution. When and how it would come, it was argued when the "material conditions" make it be. It was Lenin that brought the idea of a violent revolution that should occur for the workers to make the material conditions to be satisfied. "Immanentize the eschaton."
    1
  94. Laymen using scientific terms for social acceptance or status, basically.
    1
  95. I actually agree with you on this. I did that during my undergraduate years. I spent my free time watching videos online, and it helped a lot as it eventually led mento your channel. Ultimately, unless I want to spend time developing my own business, I’d rather shut up and parrot to get a degree to get a job. Though it would be quite interesting to make a video about the history of public education.
    1