Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "TimeGhost History" channel.

I think the intro of "Not capitalist, not socialist, simply criminal" is the best way of breaking down nazi policy. Fascism itself is such a hard thing to nail down because everything under "fascism" was so radically different in policy and implementation that it's very easy to refer to them as different systems entirely. They didn't really share anything beyond the belief of service to the nation and the best way to describe it is: "a slur for people you don't like." It just gets super bad no matter what and also gets into the issue of what you define as left or right wing. I found one definition where it defined it as "equality vs hierarchy" which is fine enough, but goes so far against many other definitions such as "how much government inference in the lives of the citizens" (that's simply in my words but definitely a vision seen by many citizens). Fascism is just a mixed bag all the way and the best way to refer to the nazis is just that: nazis. They took whatever ideas suited their desires best and stirred it into a pot and just like that Nazi Germany was born. Very strange thing to look at. I also appreciate Sparticus Oleson's pinned comment. Absolutely stunning breakdown and I LOVE it. I believe it even qualifies as BASED.
55
@Rocktypeh I think that's largely accurate. Because among all of the fascist movements it's really the only common thread between any of them. I'm not sure about the Palingenetic portion However as I'm unsure how much any of the main fascist movements really focused on rebirth, but populist ultranationalism I think is a fine enough definition. However I think "ultra-" portion of the word needs to be specified as "at the expense of the individual" which is to say that all individual freedoms are less important than that of the state or nation. Though even then... I'm not sure that's enough. I think maybe simply to also add that they'll do anything for power. And that's probably the best definition of a fascist.
3
@jwenting I think we just have a tendency to see ourselves as smarter than our ancestors because we have more technology and have more access to information, but at the same time we've made habits of proliferating myths about our Ancestors' ignorance. The truth is we don't know how a lot of things work still, but often how to deal with it. Part of the human condition is seeing patterns and trying to draw conclusions. While that can sometimes work against us by drawing incorrect conclusions or seeing patterns where none exist, it's always been an incredibly useful tool in surviving. Many times patterns have a C variable which is the true independent variable while the other two are simply dependent, as long as you act in accordance with the pattern you can still have a reasonable amount of success with isolating the C variable only useful for better increasing it. Sometimes you'll just accidentally meddle with the C variable regardless. A lot of times tbh. I think we discount ancient wisdom and tradition just because we think we know more now and don't see why it exists, but usually part of the reason we don't is because the effects were kept down by said tradition. Very interesting to go through history and have modern science support old traditions.
2
That's incredibly interesting to me. Especially since they're very different to my knowledge from the nazi economy
2
I believe it May be necessary to keep European sovereignty as it's incredibly difficult to coordinate many militaries under joint command. But a common military would allow a lot of standardization and other benefits. In terms of militaries centralization of power is always preferable for efficiency. So the option is trying to coordinate multiple militaries with their own equipment, training, and specialization, or just make it yourself. Also I find it funny that the language for this United military would be almost guaranteed to be English.
2
@stephenhodgson3506 Tbh... the states do share a history as being part of the United States and largely being started by the same ethnic groups. They also all share history under a single government having given troops. It's also a much more recent history with most states being less than 200 years old. Compare that to at least a thousand for every European country. It's a little disingenuous to me when you try to compare it to the US when the USA is created entirely by migrations of people and largely still forming its culture and traditions. Unlike Europe which largely has the same groups in the same places for the entire time having traditions millenia old. Though I guess you could compare it to India which was largely the same. I also kind of feel like it's a bit disingenuous to say that Germany only existed since then when the HRE was basically in its place since 800. Alsace-Lorraine has been on the fringe of both countries. And I'm pretty sure Spain didn't rule the Netherlands and lost a war to them in which they immediately bought weapons from after because the Dutch were just kind of pulling Chad moves. Maybe you're confusing the Netherlands for southern Italy. Belgium you have a point though. Fake country.
2
@stephenhodgson3506 I'm aware of the Prussian situation... and that completely ignores my point about the Holy Roman Empire which ALSO fought napoleon and did so before Prussia. Germany as we know it today is simply united German states (although under the Prussian cultural tradition). Compare that to the also united German states of the Holy Roman empire. It was a different name and government but largely the same territory which is why I say it's unfair. Also worth noting that the "Spanish Netherlands" is actually present day Belgium and Luxembourg instead of the Netherlands proper. Also beyond Louisiana... most of the territories you're thinking of have generally weak ties to their history and have long since been dominated by whoever moved there. Case in point Texas, which was largely removed from any of the Spanish influence by the time it joined the USA as even the Mexican government had a weak hold on it to the point where they seceded. It was long influenced by American settlers in the region and the Mexicans in the area were largely pushed out. Same thing with a lot of the Mexican territory ceded to the USA. Also really funny you mention the Louisiana purchase as with ALL of that land which came from that... only Louisiana proper ever had any cultural tradition from before beyond the native one. Similar for much of what was gained in the Mexican American War because it was largely desert with more significant migration to those states coming from the previous hundred years. The culture in those states are largely created by the migrants and have little ties to who had them first beyond the city names such as "Los Angeles" and "San Diego." Also largely important to note that the borders there which mark them today largely had little to do with who was actually in those areas as they mostly didn't exist yet. And you can't compare that to anything in Europe because even Belgium has a population that has been there since longer than the United States has existed. Btw Florida? Spanish actually had little presence apart from St Augustine and that is incredibly evident from the city names which aren't Spanish at all being almost completely pushed out in the transition. Never was a big colony for the Spanish.
2
@bayoubilly5176 I think this may be the One time where you have a case. However it has been shown in many instances even when they don't show such footage that they will be hit with the censor. YouTube frequently pulls down videos for little things which are far less than this such as putting a swastika in a video concerning the nazis. On top of that there's very much a "made for kids" section that goes on a certain section of YouTube that is specifically catering to that audience. Otherwise YouTube acknowledges the intended audience is 13+ which is out of the range you mentioned. YouTube will sometimes demonetize a video for curse words or people making suggestive jokes, but nude yoga will be allowed. There are supposed to be exceptions for educational content and content such as historical videos are clearly in that category, but then those rules won't be applied. It is very malicious in how it basically attacks anything but a whitewashed history instead of the red splattered canvas it really is. On topic of cancel culture you are mixing up the outcry of the censoring of conservatives vs the censoring with cancel culture which is any bad thing you say ever will be used against you see: James Gunn or Kevin Hart apology campaign or Gina Carano. On the topic of censorship of certain political stances the Vox and Steven Crowder Adpocalypse was kind of a part of that as the only reason he was published at all was seemingly because of his stances as he used words to describe Carlos Masa in words he used to describe himself and then Carlos cried hate speech. The only reason they couldn't really go further is because Steven Crowder has sued YouTube multiple times whenever they try to take him down. Twitter once pulled his account for literally no reason given (the reason given portion of that notification was blank) and similar things have happened to his contemporaries. Another important thing to note on this is the Misgendering policy of many companies (though here YouTube seems to not have one) which usually in the vein of not calling transitioned individuals by their preferred pronouns where if it were from the right wing perspective misgendering would be a person referring to a woman as a man. What this indicates is that there's a bias even within the rules themselves as they are from a certain point of view which may not be shared by everyone. Algorithms themselves are simply will in code and are subject entirely to the whims of who make them which will have their biases within them just not even consciously but just by how they see the world. Nothing can really escape this unless you have people with differing viewpoints on the initial algorithm level. So it can be invisible in many instances just because it gets something like that on there. There's some of it intentional, and some that isn't. But the clear truth is that there is a bias present and it's hurting the discourse.
1
@stephenhodgson3506 My point in the Holy Roman empire and that time lapse is that Germany very much did exist and probably why the empire of Germany saw themselves as the second German empire (second Reich after all) and the collapse of the HRE was just the uniting factor in the German states that had fallen apart so Prussia fought napoleon multiple times in that fashion. Also no my point about Texas actually refers to the fact that they were an independent republic before annexation. The fact that the Mexicans had little control due to the migration of American settlers to the region and had started the republic in the first place. Also while the Spanish had a long history in California... again... largely pushed out. California had been very sparsely populated until the gold rush which had created a huge influx with most of that influx being Americans from the east
1
@stephenhodgson3506 California became a US state BECAUSE of the gold rush a quick Google search would help you get the timeline because it started in 1848 and California statehood in 1850 with the compromise of 1850 admitted as a free state. Gold rush started a year prior to its admittance to the union and part of the reason why it was admitted was because the people who had moved to the state sought statehood. Now...I never said they couldn't have a united military because of this. I simply said the comparison between the USA and the EU is disingenuous because thousands of years of history in the same place with the same groups, cannot compare to a country who's I constituent populations share largely the same cultural roots and who's populations are largely influenced by the influx of migrations of other people's who brought their cultural traditions and not people who've had cultural traditions in their areas for over a thousand years. The lines on the map in Europe have changed little on the local level and the populations have changed equally less. Compared to the United States who frequently pushed out and outpopulated anyone there first which is why the lines on the map in the US largely don't correlate between lines on the map and are more blobs which just fizzle out in terms of populations. Take Tennessee and Kentucky who basically no-one will tell the difference between unless they're from either. Compare Kansas and Nebraska. Compare the entirety of the Midwest. And now compare France and Germany or Italy and Austria. It's not at all alike. Oh another reason why I say Holy Roman empire is because people in Germany still largely see themselves as their constituent states such as Saxony or Bavaria and even has differences in the language. The only difference between imperial Germany and HRE is more governmental and the idea of German nationalism from that time which beyond those two things isn't much difference besides territory as Prussia and Austria had a lot of polish territory at the time.
1
This is a requirement
1
I recently watched the Geopoltics section of Whatifalthist and learned a bit about the "general crisis theory" so glad seeing this reinforced how humanity goes.
1