Comments by "" (@12q8) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
106
-
75
-
31
-
19
-
17
-
16
-
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
-
11
-
9
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@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As for big government, you are again using historical outdated left and right, which differ on what they stand for based how far back we are talking and where.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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2