Comments by "BVargas78" (@BVargas78) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. Kaiser has a point though, mosser 1989. In 19th century conservatives tended to be protectionist/mercantilist with a state/private partnership, when it came to economics. Like we see with East India Company. It was the liberals not the conservatives that were in favour of the free markets and less regulation. Nowadays we call them 'classical liberals' because they combined laissez faire with more socially liberal (for the time) ideals also. On a side note, i like TIKs military videos but he has dropped the ball here. I'm not trying to come off as a socialist or national socialist apologist here, i'm not in favour of either. He's just wrong on some pretty basic things like what I just mentioned. It's almost like he's an expert on war, logistics and tactics but a bit of a newbie when it comes to social and economic history/concepts.
    31
  2. Take your time with it, don't burn yourself out.
    6
  3. LiliaTV who reviews mostly rpg type games has been hit by a similar scam lately too but she's back in control of her channel again now, fortunately.
    4
  4. @mosser 1989 I understand your argument that their positions kind of switched, or at least changed over time. But i'm pretty sure TIK was referring to 19th century at the time and not the 20th century. Go to timestamp 0:55 he clearly says 'in the 1800's' when talking about those two trains of thought. A school-boy error!
    3
  5. Hope he actually sees this
    2
  6. Impressive!
    2
  7. It’s certainly interesting.
    2
  8. There is a big ideological difference between the socialists of the right (such as fascists and nazis) and the socialists of the left (Marxists and the other left/progressives) other than just being internationalist or nationalist. Nazi's and fascists believe it is just and good that there is a hierarchy where the strong take their rightul positions at the top. The weak and unproductive, should be grateful to get anything more than contempt, because it reflects the natural order. While the Marxist left believes in equalizing hierarchy, if there is a natural order to reality, then we will change it. As a consequence of this, a Marxist may seek to strengthen the position of the weak to the detriment of the strong. And a fascist or nazi cannot stand such an affront to their sensibilities. While a Marxist sees the often traditional and conservative hierarchy of power as an affront to their sensibilities. Which is why we hear 'smash the patriarchy' type rhetoric from feminists and modern left so often these days. So while in practice, the dictatorships of the marxist left and the dictatorships of the authoritarian far right can seem similar (strong central control, 'do as i say or else' approach to governing etc, they are very different in in their philosophical outlook and values, which places them at opposite sides pretty much. Which is why i do not prescribe to the viewpoint of seeing them as part of the same team (aka socialists).
    2
  9.  @RazvanMihaeanu  But there is more to it than being internationalist or not, or even racially focused or not. At it's most rudimentary, the difference in outlook is that one group believes in a natural order, and see's it as a good and virtuous thing. The strong get their position at the top, the weak gets their position at the bottom, or is done away with if seen as useless or a burden. The other group seeks to do away with that or turn it on it's head even, normally by putting a burden on the strong, to the benefit of the weak, until it's done away with and theoretically balances itself out. Now i'm not saying I subscribe to one of these views or the other, my point is that they are very much at loggerheads, they are opposing views. Even if they may borrow some similar tactics and methods to achieve their ends.
    2
  10. I think it was failure to defeat Britain in the battle of Britain. With Britain still in the fight it condemned them to a two front war and the writing was on the wall.
    1
  11. Does TIK still play video games? Would be interesting to see his opinion on newer ww2 games like HOI4, Panzer Corp 2, Unity of Command 2 and Steel Division games. Guess with all the reading and research for the videos he doesn't get much time for that anymore.
    1
  12. Have yourself some fun, Tik!
    1
  13. If socialism is group control of the means of production, where would corporations stand? Does this fit the definition? If so, what if the world were dominated by corporations making it near impossible for individuals to compete within the private sector unless in a supporting role? And the state were merely there as a rubber stamp and in order to help keep law and order? Corporations, at least the bigger ones tend to be publically owned, and heavily influenced by shareholders, another group of people. Though we do also get privately owned corporations, which tend to be smaller.
    1
  14. He started the war partly to meet his vision of lebensraum but also because he feared that if he didn't attack soon the soviet union would become unassailable (he wrongly thought it was possible to beat it prior to going to war, and grossly underestimated it, the terrible soviet performance vs finland only fueled this opinion that bolsheviks were useless and incompetent but given time they might get it sorted out) and that it could ultimately threaten germany itself, so the time to act was ASAP. That aside, for me Hitlers main strategic flaw was partly that he liked to take high stake gambles but also that he had appears to have had a sense of fate. Belief in fate is not a sign of a madman but it does lead to slightly irrational decisions on the basis that one thinks things will come right in the end, its our destiny etc.
    1
  15. People, particularly of the current globalist establishment like to paint nationalism in a bad light but this was not was caused WW1. It was imperialism.
    1