Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zaydeshaddox7015
Wow, a wall of text and nothing of substance within. I hate to break it to you, but the richest man in the world does not have leftists on his side, and you falling into the right wing antisemetic assertions of "engineering humanity" are literally proving my point. The simple fact is, conservatives and capitalists have a desire to form and reform humanity in their image, whether or not the humanity in question wants to be reformed. They want a perfect world of selfishness and pure competition and are willing to do anything to achieve it.
Hitler was as anti-progressive as it gets, even more than you. Progressive, by definition, means the lessening of hierarchy by the promoting of acceptance of identities and cultures socially. Nothing to do with a "more evolved society." Nor, of course, did hitler want some new society, he was a traditionalist after all. He didn't dream of a better humanity, he dreamt of returning humanity to a past state, a past society, one that has long since vanished. Your assertion is utterly unfounded and without any sort of evidence. I hate to break it to you, but your definition of progressive and society is so far removed from reality it's almost scary. Of course, a society in which people can live in harmony with the planet and eachother, no matter their individuals and identities, is the goal of the progressive movement. The simple fact is, you wish progressives were some conspiratorial eugenicists that hate order or freedom or something, but in reality, they are promoting a basic human inclusion of our fellow man. Hitler's ideology was ambitious, as he felt that conservatism didn't go far enough in resisting the rise of progressive impulses. Look, instead of having some sad reaction and trying to cover up hitler's anti-progressive impulses, just own it. Your "similarities" are completely manufactured and nonsensical, with no basis in the ideologies of either the nazis or the progressives. Knowing that some dictators pushed the same anti-progressive mantra as you is uncomfortable, yes, but you need to learn to stop advocating for the same views that people like hitler pushed. You don't seem to understand socialism, and you feel the need to paint it in some sort of conspiratorial light instead of actually dealing with it as an ideology. I don't advocate socialism, and I suppose that is the one commonality I have with hitler, thought we do so for very reasons. I just wish you realized that your ideological assertions align with the hitler and dictatorial types of the world, and that projecting that outward does little to help your credibility. It's hilarious how you look at a capitalist world, the result of policies passed by right wingers, and somehow twist this into some sort of criticism of socialism. Why are you so worried about the hypothetical enforcing of socialism, when right now, in your backyard, capitalism is being enforced with policy, with military, with force and threat and violence. There is enforcement right now, and you have no criticism to apply to it besides somehow projecting it onto the convoluted mess that you've created of all people that disagree with you.
Propaganda is what you put out, and i'm sorry that you felt the need to say in so many words what you could assert in just a few. Trying to get people to agree with your nonsense assertions has proved impossible, i'm guessing. And so you have turned to trying to guilt them into tolerating them instead.
I hate to break it to you but believing in basic reform doesn't make you left wing, and pushing the narratives of the right while openly professing to be anti-progressive doesn't make you at all left wing. The system you advocate right now is one that infringes on liberty, infringes on your way of life and sanity, and yet you have nothing to say. Blaming the education of the country is, similarly, a right wing trait. Look, I know you have an ideological agenda that you want to maintain with your nonsense assertions, but you can let it go. Hitler wasn't a progressive, he was a traditionalist, an extreme conservative, and trying to assert the opposite is just so baffling because it has literally zero ideological basis, it is a statement utterly devoid of facts and reality. It's a statement that is born completely out of a desire to other those you disagree with into one political mesh.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mitscientifica1569 Really? Clear beyond all reasonable doubt? Funny then that actual history shows the opposite, and funny how all evidence presented rapidly disproves your assertions. The nazis knew they were anti-socialists, and socialists knew this as well. The title of "National Socialism," one Hitler disagreed with at first and twisted later, is nothing more than a trick of propaganda. It is clear, without a reasonable doubt, that you are a proven liar.
It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that the Hitler and his associates knew of their own far right and anti-socialist view, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too. The title of National Socialism was not one that described Hitler. The evidence before 1945 was more private than public, which is perhaps significant in itself.
A number of WW2 and Nazis Germany scholars have fastidiously made absolute sure to study the private and documented conversations that Hitler had with his murderous associates ; and they accept, with a good deal of research and full historical and academic backing, the slogan "Crusade against Marxism" as a summary of his views. An age in which fascism in no way sapplies to the many other paths of other random Communist/Socialist dictators like Mao and Stalin, who holocaust denialists try to paint as "as evil as Hitler. "
His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily.
Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Leading Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Right wing tradition. "We stand for the maintenance of private property..." he once remarked, "We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order.”. He was proud of a knowledge of right wing traditionalist views acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch.
The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that they believed in the party of the left, that "will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism", implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world or his nazi ideology without a rejection of the left; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been "a private Russian affair", whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history, in his rejection of it!
Hitler’s differences with the communists, he explained, were far more ideological than tactical.
German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas "I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun", adding revealingly that "the whole of National Socialism" was based on anti-marxist far right view.
Hitler privately, and even publicly, conceded that National Socialism was based on the traditionalists and conservatives of his era, and not marx.
Hitler's discovery was that socialism was not a system that described his views, national or international. Even presuming "national socialism" as a coherent term, Hitler was no advocate of it. The Right wing of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, he claimed, and his task was to "convert the German volk to complete control of anti-socialists, private and public without simply killing off the old individualists", meaning the entrepreneurial and managerial classes left from the age of liberalism. They should be used, not destroyed, a statement any socialist could reject. Hitler had no desire for a system in which the state had control, nor did he desire a system in which the economy was panned or directed. Rather, he preferred his own right wing anti-socialist system, which we know more now than ever, without a single doubt, is nowhere close to a form of socialism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@damianbylightning6823
Nah, i'm pointing out that left and right are concrete terms that have historical meaning, and that represent shared interest and histories of organizing around eachother and fighting for the same principles. Your argument is simply that the terms aren't accurate or useful... because you say they aren't accurate and useful. Every term is just something a lot of people say, a lot of people call that one red, tree-born fruit an apple, and so it is known as an apple in english. Thus, the movements of the left are known as such because they have a coherent and historically observable connection. The left and right do generally oppose eachother, though I wouldn't say all views within either are truly opposites. You're free to deny history on no basis but your own word, but i'm certainly going to call it out when I see it. And yes, if lots of people renamed craters or sunspots to "pink oak trees," that is what they would come to be known! As of now, we know for a fact that there are connecting ties between what we now know as the left and right, whatever they are called.
Your statements utterly lack both argumentation and logic, and your assertion that trained and accredited historians are wrong simply because you don't agree with them is utterly absurd. Spraying out utter nonsense and then trying to recommend me to study logic is quite funny, at least you're aware of Wittgenstein though, so you know where to start your journey towards reality.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dreisiglps2451
Yep, and orwell was right. Despite an increased radicalization and different rhetoric, the goals of the nazis were pretty damn similar to the goals of the conservative party before them. The Google definition of Conservatism would be:
1. commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation
2. the holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas
Did hitler commit to traditional values and ideas? Yes.
Did he favor private ownership, socially traditional ideas, and capitalist enterprise within his own country? Yes.
Did he need to like "100% free enterprise-Laissez-Faire-Capitalism" to be a conservative? No, and most conservatives don't fit that definition.
Did hitler like jewish citizens, migrants, and unionists? No.
Do modern conservatives like jewish citizens, migrants, and unionists? No.
Did historical conservatives like those things? God no.
Was Hitler a totalitarian? Yes.
Were the conservatives totalitarian? Yes.
Are you engaging in an association fallacy? Yes.
I have researched those terms, the definitions, synonyms and antonyms of all the words that you have posted, as well as the TIK videos you insist everyone watch. More than that I have actually examined his arguments and sources, and found his interpretation lacking. Is that enough for you, champ? TIK doesn't explain Fascism's definition well at all, he seems to think it's an economic theory, and he doesn't explain the difference between public and private and the historic uses of those words either. As for the source you're asking for, Mussolini's "The Doctrine of Fascism" contains statements referring to fascism as a "movement of the right," and "contrasting socialism."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@teemuvesala9575
No, child. In fact, historically, the vast majority of right wing ideologies have been against "individual freedom," freedom of speech, small government, limited power, and so forth. I mean, look at how modern right wingers constantly empower the military. No, fascism and nazism are not "socialist fundamentally," nor are they any more "collectivist" than capitalism itself. They are far right, anti-socialist ideologies.
2
-
@laymanseller2253
No, child, not indeed. "totalitarian" is not synonymous with collectivism, as a totalitarian government can absolutely reject any sort of collective right or care, as hitler and mussolini were famous for doing. Of course, collectivism isn't "another word for socialism" either, as socialism has a long history of advocacy for the individual and capitalists/conservatives have a long history of collectivism. Hitler wasn't a socialist, hence, his distain for socialism and collective rights. That's why he advocated for private, rather than communal/collective, ownership. Individual rights seem to be things that capitalists don't much care about, and of course, individualism is not "another word for capitalism," as history shows a huge movement of anticapitalist individualists. Private does not mean individual and personal, and communal does not mean public or government. In your whole response, you didn't get a single definition right.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@teemuvesala9575
Child, hitler was never a social democrat. It's ironic though that you claim this, because social democracy is a type of capitalism, in fact, the very type of capitalism that defined the Weimar republic, which he of course overthrew. Now, actual debate rules would specify that you are the one that made the claim, and thus you must provide evidence for your own claim, however we are both painfully aware that no evidence exists for your frankly laughably assertions. Of course, if hitler was "always a socialist," he would not have constantly opposed the inclusion of the word "Socialist" into the party/ideology title, and later purged those that proposed it. I'm sorry you can't accept this simple reality, but your constant deflection from any request to actually cite your claims makes your inability to do so crystal clear. It's a simple proven fact that hitler was a proud right winger, a fact that only recently right wingers have started to deny, because they don't want them associated with their modern nazi-adjacent ideology. Not to worry, child, we're all painfully aware of how much you hate leftists, something you and hitler have in common. No, child, not all leftists. Why don't we hear from hitler himself?
“And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago.”
2
-
2
-
@teemuvesala9575
Child, again, what you mean is that you're incapable of doing actual research, and when someone comes around and makes your ignorance clear, you attempt to discredit them without ever responding to a single one of their facts. You, of course, are unable to research, hence your inability to cite a single one of your claims. When actual research is presented to you, you respond much like hitler did, asserting the existence of some sort of marxist/socialist conspiracy, and using said conspiracy to justify the discarding/destruction of information.
2
-
@teemuvesala9575
But I have. The simple problem lies in the fact that you have yet to give anything that merits responding to in the first place. You make silly assertions, fail to back them up, and then run away when evidence is presented that contradicts your narrative. All you've done is make assertions and silly insults, what can be responded to there? So, as usual, i've ended up doing the work, and actually presenting to you evidence and citation, logical and factual argument that utterly destroys your narrative, and you can only run in fear. Child, i've been able to run circles around you, and now you're projecting your ignorance onto me? Of course, i've already provided hitler himself asserting his support of the right, but why not now cite some strong critics of authoritarianism, and how they viewed hitler in his own time, before even his death? "For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism." That was Orwell, of course. It's funny, hitler is actually well known for opposing the inclusion and usage of socialism in his party, and later, attempting to redefine socialism, saying quite literally that socialism was merely another word for nationalism. There are no assumptions made here child, he was openly far right. We know what nationalists socialists look like, and we find that they have nothing in common with the far right nazis. The nazis despised socialism, not just historically or contemporarily, but the very moral and economic assumptions that socialism is built on top of. They hated socialism, even in terms of their nation or race. Of course, communism isn't "international socialism," it's an entire other system, but you'll learn that eventually. Nazi ideology is a form of far right anti-socialist ideology. You ran away from the argument because you know that you already lost. How sad, hm?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@teemuvesala9575
But I have proved them wrong. I, unlike you, have been more than happy to bring facts, citations, argumentation, logical analysis and clear points to your attention. Your response, of course, is to hurl out more insults, and pretend that responses we can all see, haven't actually been made. I've disproved you according to every possible metric, and the fact that you still refuse to even respond to rebuttals of your "points" proves as much. You're scared of engaging, because you know this is a fight you can't win. I'm not an absolute authority on the truth, absolutely, nobody is. But i'll trust the work of peer-reviewed historians and verifiable speeches/economic data over you, child. Hitler hated communism because communism was of the left, and provided a threat to his right wing ideology. If you think populism is socialist, you have some research to do.
2
-
2
-
@teemuvesala9575
But he wasn't a socialist, as i've proven. Unless you wish to argue that pro-private, nationalist, right wingers can be socialist, his worldview and ideology is simply incoherent with socialism as a concept, a fact plain to see even before an examining of his economic ideology. Hitler wasn't a social democrat, and again, social democracies are capitalist systems, systems you can literally see calling themselves capitalists in the modern idea. Of course, in reality, hitler proudly chanted "Death To Marxism," while praising the work of european conservatives like Evola, Von Papen, Schmidt, and so on. Hitler despised socialism in all forms, "race centered" or otherwise. Tell me, does this sound like a socialist?
Bollocks - What right do these people have to demand a share of property or even in administration?... The employer who accepts the responsibility for production also gives the workpeople their means of livelihood. Our greatest industrialists are not concerned with the acquisition of wealth or with good living, but, above all else, with responsibility and power. They have worked their way to the top by their own abilities, and this proof of their capacity – a capacity only displayed by a higher race – gives them the right to lead."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2