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