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

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
@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 However, trying to use this outdated continuum causes confusions like libertarians being "pro-conservatism", and that authoritarianism can be in "both ends" and working from that theory to place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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hitler was more coherent in his earlier speeches. Edit: ok, the yellow boots got me. Lol.
1
A weak state is a corrupt state. I won’t call 90s Russia ancap.
1
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
@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
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
@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
And wasn't only the German parts of Czechoslovakia given to Germany yet he invaded it all?
1
Damn, what religion is TIK talking about here?
1
Not anarchic in the chaotic sense?
1
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
The shareholders can also literally vote the CEO out.
1
 @gilgamesh310 Probably. The only cases I've heard of it happening are when a single shareholder owns over 50% of a company.
1
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
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
Keynes added tons of confusion to what capitalism is.
1
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
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
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
I watched some of those. Most made no sense without knowing the context when the speech was given.
1
@Bluz1 I don’t see how that proved Darwin wrong. Can you explain?
1
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
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
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
I watched the video. You promised controversy. I found none. Lol!
1
The new title sounds very much like your original video's title. Lol.
1
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
Free-Market Anarchism might be the better word?
1
@LuzikArbuzik77 I don't think anyone is arguing against that.
1
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
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
Mussolini using Evola is a next level smart move. I find it hilariously simple and yet, ingenious!
1
>"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
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
Laymen using scientific terms for social acceptance or status, basically.
1
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