Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @jloiben12  "Look, this isn't an argument!" - Michael Palin
    2
  2.  @jloiben12  I just did.
    2
  3.  @jloiben12  No they aren't
    2
  4.  @jloiben12  Takes one to know one.
    2
  5. Its because of Madman Hitler that they didn't just paradrop all the vps
    2
  6.  @sylvainprigent6234  Nah, basically it is level 10 instructure. The new mechanics about about trains it seems.
    2
  7.  @dragosstanciu9866  Problem is, that would involve getting the Nazis to not be Nazis.
    2
  8.  mike mcmike  Oh, they do. Go watch DemocraticMarxist01.
    2
  9.  mike mcmike  Alan Brown, Goetz Aly, Rainer Zitelmann, need I go on?
    2
  10.  mike mcmike  Alan Brown says at the very introduction that "Hitler was as much a socialist as Marx. They both shared the same ultimate goal - the socialisation of the people into a harmonious community free of exploitation - but they differed significantly in the methods required to achieve it. " Goetz Aly has an entire section dedicated to Hitler's Socialism in "Hitler's Beneficiaries". Zitelmann considers Nazism to be a socialist-like ‘third way’ between Marxism and Capitalism. (Note he said "Marxism" and not socialism in general). >You are so stupid man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=71s
    2
  11.  @TheImperatorKnight  Dresden is too important to not make. You will leave it to the David Irvings otherwise. Put it on Bitchute at least.
    2
  12. How is Lenin not a socialist?
    2
  13. Citations needed
    2
  14.  @nelo1  I guess I'll have to go to the primary sources then.
    2
  15. 59:05
    2
  16. Sorry to waste your time TIK, but Aiden B has instructed me to ask you whether you think "private" corporations like Amazon are Marxist, and further more, do you believe that the state can exist under capitalism?
    2
  17. "I'm here to defend the Holocaust" - TIK
    2
  18.  @TheImperatorKnight  They did it anyway, though
    2
  19.  @rlkinnard  Watch and see. P.S., you only really need to watch from Section 5, the first bit is mainly a response to Marxists such as the Finnish Bolshevik, etc.
    2
  20. He already responded to Three Arrows
    2
  21.  @drewan6591  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8
    2
  22. Cope more lmao
    2
  23. No, it is because Marx is obscurantist since if he practiced brevity his magnum opus would be reduced to 30 pages of falsehoods that anyone with a basic grasp of economics could refute.
    2
  24.  @JoseRodriguez-pn8yj  Call me a lolbert but the purpose of the state is to protect your rights to life liberty and property.
    2
  25. tbh I would like my children to know that I value them extremely highly, not that I am sacrificing some higher values to care for them, yet still doing so because it's my duty to do so or something.
    2
  26. TIK is a general history (and occassionally economic and philosophy) YouTuber. He can't speak about military history without speaking about the beliefs which caused the wars, regardless of how many toes he may tread on.
    2
  27.  @dwizzi1724  This would imply that people have a right to the goods required for healthcare regardless of whether this causes a conflict or not, implying a contradiction.
    2
  28.  @dwizzi1724  There is a conflict between the person wanting healthcare and the person who already has the goods for healthcare. Stating that the person who already has the goods should lose the conflict is a contradiction because argument implies that he should be convinced through reason to give the goods to the person.
    2
  29.  @dwizzi1724  Well it is, as proceeding forward with the conflict regardless of whether he is convinced by the reasons for being charitable goes against the ethic of argumentation that one should be convinced by the virtue of an action before being compelled to take it.
    2
  30.  @dwizzi1724  Well, society isn't exactly a good bought and sold, rather it consists in buying and selling goods under a division of labour. Yes, society is good.
    2
  31.  @dwizzi1724  Same people with cars, houses and property.
    2
  32. Given all these glorious reforms has been tried and failed, you have more to worry about than Godwin's Law.
    2
  33. It is understandable that you are unconvinced. This video was directed at national socialists. Here is the extended cut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCkyWBPaTC8
    2
  34. What is more important, military history or political history? Neither, E C O N O M I C S
    2
  35.  @benbruce9192  Does "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell count?
    2
  36.  @srelma  And? It once was mainline to think that miasma caused cholera.
    2
  37.  @ThugShakers4Christ  but this would only answer the criminological question of what motivates one to commit the theft, rather than define it properly
    2
  38. He is higher than a geostationary satellite.
    2
  39.  @shekuilleoneal5780  >Who are you to say what people can and can't deny >people should seriously consider locking you up I's the "OK when we do it" mentality of labour.
    2
  40.  @shekuilleoneal5780  Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from social consequences. I am not arguing that it doesn't mean freedom of speech from legal consequences but I am arguing it doesn't mean freedom from social consequences. It is his channel, and he can do as he wishes. Also, I do not think he is an authoritarian at all. He is a fan of the Austrian school of economics and jokes about how people think to protect us from gangs of thieves, we need to have a massive gang of thieves known as the state.
    2
  41.  @shekuilleoneal5780  And this feeds back into my point of you being a Labour voter. you believe that speaking out against free speech should be met with arrest, which is fairly anti-free speech.
    2
  42.  @shekuilleoneal5780  Read the First Amendment again. It says "Congress shall make no law..." referring explicitly to the government. Private property owners are not subject to the First Amendment then.
    2
  43.  @shekuilleoneal5780  Freedom of speech means you cannot be prosecuted for the things you say. Social consequences is a part of freedom of speech, and you and I can use our freedom of speech to criticize the social consequences.
    2
  44.  @shekuilleoneal5780  Thing is, they would turn round and prosecute you for the things you say. I wouldn't.
    2
  45.  @abc68130  Scientific?
    2
  46.  @abc68130  No, I am just wondering why are you mentioning science when this is relating to history?
    2
  47. He put Marxists in concentration camps.
    2
  48. "Lalalalala, I can't hear you!"
    2
  49.  @guerillagardener2237  Why do we have the right to the property of BT?
    2
  50.  @guerillagardener2237  Okay, I understand, I have been having similar issues with myself. I don't see the equivalency between privatisation and a Ponzi scheme. All privatisation means is that the State transfers control of it's capital goods to an individual, this doesn't mean said individuals are then going to commit fraud.
    2