Comments by "Itinerant Patriot" (@itinerantpatriot1196) on "TIKhistory" channel.

Actually, if you're going to make the argument that Christianity leads to self-hared by default you might want to properly identify the branch that is most in-line with your argument. The notion you describe, total depravity, is a Calvinist, not a Catholic position. It's why they diminish, or outright reject James 2: 24-26: “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone…For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” Faith versus works is one of the fundamental schisms between Protestantism and Catholicism. If you're going to take a run at the idea that we have a fallen nature and are in need of a redeemer in a snarky manner at least get the who believes what aspect correct.
75
A few people have already noted the flaws in the way altruism is portrayed in this video. Having a desire to help other people does not stem from some form of self-hatred nor does it lead to it. That is possibly the most bizarre description I have ever heard and I gotta throw the BS flag. I don't think TIK is particularly religious but Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all require people to care for the less fortunate. That doesn't mean people of faith are by default self-loathing. The only religion I know that frowns on it are the Eastern faiths that believe in karma, that people are basically getting what they deserve for some past sin from a past life, and who are we to interfere with that? Socialism is one of the least altruistic systems devised by man. People are left off the hook since it falls on the state to provide for the poor. That is the appeal and it's why modern-day cultural Marxists place such a high premium on victimhood. It's not that they have some intrinsic desire to help the less fortunate, it's all about will to power where the so-called marginalized groups have replaced the proletariat as the new grievance-centric base for popular support. If the hardcore lefties ever got the power they desire in the U.S. and other western nations they wouldn't give two damns about those marginalized groups. Hell, they would probably put them at the head of the list for the trains heading to the new camps. I don't buy that argument at all that altruism is to blame for creating monsters. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro and on down the line, the one thing they all have in common is a rejection of God and a desire for a secular world where man is not held to any transcendent morality. A world where they set the rules, norms, and customs based on their own twisted desires, where justice and equity are arbitrary concepts based on what Rousseau called the general will, what they would call, what I want them to be. That is the essence of the end of history, the day when nothing that came before matters. The only thing that matters is today and what matters is left up to them, not some cultural belief system rooted in thousands of years of tradition. It's just what I say goes. It really is that simple, a pure desire for the acquisition and application of power, nothing more, nothing less. That's what drove very single one of those bastards.
55
“Most people are not just comfortable in their ignorance, but hostile to anyone who points it out.” ― Plato’s Allegory of the Cave
26
I always get a kick out these nihilists claiming to be anti-fascist when they have no clue what the term means. That idiot from CNN, don lemon, even sarcastically told an actual adult that ANTIFA is a freedom loving organization because they are against fascism. "It's in their name," he exclaimed, while the guest just sort of looked at him and probably thought to himself, if you weren't a gay black guy you would be working the drive-thru some place. Stalin, like Lenin before him, liked to keep things simple because, like Lenin, he considered the proletariat to be too stupid to grasp ideological nuance. As much as I despise Stalin, he had a point there, but I digress. Anyway, like Lenin did with his "bread, land, peace," campaign in 1918, Stalin decided it was a lot easier to define all his enemies as fascists and be done with it. When Truman challenged him about not honoring his commitment to allow democratic governments in Central Europe, Stalin's retort was that any government that wasn't fascist was democratic so he wasn't violating any of his agreements WRT to the socialist states popping up like dandelions in the nations the Red Army "liberated." And, like all good lefties do, the rest of commies across the world adopted the practice and there ya have it. Give the commies credit, they are a persistent bunch and they do march in lock-step once something is decided. Of course China is leading the way in the 21st Century and there is no telling which way Xi will go in the next 10 years. He has stated a desire to redress past wrongs and he seems to be quite adept at buying American politicians. Time will tell what the next phase of authoritarianism will look like on a grand scale. Stay tuned.
6
Or, you could make the argument that sending innocent people to a disease riddled camp for the crime of simply being Jewish is akin to murder. If someone showed up at your home and threw you and your family into one of those hell holes and some of your family died as a result, what would you call it? A rose by any other name.
6
Röhm had served his purpose. Hitler was on to bigger things and the only way to get that done was to have the army on board with his plan. Röhm was seen as a threat, a sh*t disturber with the potential of messing up everything Hitler had in mind and getting the Führer killed for the effort. Hence Röhm had to go. It's that simple. To borrow from the Godfather, it wasn't personal, it was just business.
4
Hitler was a lot of things but Christian certainly wasn't one of them. He was a mystic, but even that was laced in with opportunism. People projected onto Hitler and Hitler welcomed it. He let others create the myth and went along for the ride. The only time you see Nazism linked with Christianity is in the later iterations that popped up in America, and that was largely based on an attempt to link up with the Klan who had this distorted idea that their notions on white supremacy were based on scripture. But that was also opportunistic since the grand wizards were playing to their audience. They had as much use for Christianity as Hitler. But, it did provide the American left a cudgel to beat Christians over the head with, since most of them are opportunistic atheist's. Power. It's all about power. Christ came to humble the powerful and empower the weak. That's why it will never be a useful tool for communists or fascists and will always be the one institution they know they need to kill if their totalitarian utopia is to have any chance of coming into being, which it won't since it is based on the idea that man is supreme and God isn't real. But they will do a lot of damage in the meantime. Hang on kiddies, this party is just getting started.
4
A lot of numbers get tossed around but the basic gist was Churchill would have 10 or so ideas a day and nine of them were bad. Put this one squarely in the bad idea column, whoever came up with it. Tik makes the case, there was no appetite for a war with the USSR in either the U.S. or Britain. Nobody really gave a sh*t about Poland and the idea that you could whip up public sentiment for them in 46 was crazy. It could be this was just one of 100 war plans by people who get paid to come up with such plans but this one got leaked for one reason or another. Trial balloon? Who knows. But planning goes on every day. Following WWI U.S. war planners had several plans in place to fight Britain. It's a cottage industry inside of most defense departments. Kinda like Bruce Willis talking about NASA in the movie Armageddon: "I bet you got a room full of guys just thinking shit up and another group of guys backing them up." Makes for some good chum for the counterfactual waters though.
4
If the guy took material from Sony or one of the large corporations he would get flagged and his content would be blocked. For anyone not part of the corporate club I guess you're on your own. As for this kid, I doubt the issue of plagiarism was ever addressed when he was in school. I was enrolled in a Masters program a few years back and got placed on a team dominated by young ill-educated people who would routinely sluff off work onto others and when they did do what they were assigned the quality was so poor it ended up having to be rewritten. This one young woman literally copy and pasted entire paragraphs from some website and when I called her on it she got super defensive, saying she was too busy for all this school work and if we didn't like that we could pound sand. It was a for-profit university so I get why their standards were so appallingly low but I imagine that is just life in the current world of education. The powers that be want a weak populace that won't think critically. This guy is legion. Most likely he was brought up that way and doesn't see anything wrong in what he did. I may be just an old cynic, but I went to school back in the stone age when you had to earn it. That kind of thing violates the rules of dei or whatever the commies are calling their plan for penning in the sheep. Sorry your material got lifted dude. I don't agree with all of your conclusions but I know you put the work in. It sucks when some mental midget claims it as his own, figuring it's no big deal.
4
"Socialist soy-boy fascist in denial." Now THAT is an awesome definition for these basement dwellers who show up wearing their antifa outfits at the leftist cross burnings. I'm gonna use that definition when applicable but I will cite the source.
4
Ideobabble. Fair enough. Most of it is centered on cognitive dissonance, something anyone existing in any cult must learn to not only live with but embrace. Gender is fluid, racism is based on power so it is impossible for member of an oppressed protected class to be a racist. In fact, how about oppressed protected classes? That's about as oxymoronic as it gets. Then there is my personal favorite, democratic socialist. And I always get a kick out of "anti-fascist's can't be fascist's because it's right there in their name dummy." I actually heard that mental pygmy don lemon make that argument on TV. Ask a lefty what a fascist is. Most will say Donald Trump and leave it at that. Truth is a construct after all, as malleable as Jell-O. Welcome to the age of stupid.
3
This idea that Churchill was the bad guy and that Hitler would have been content with the territorial gains he made at Munich and in its initial aftermath has gained traction, especially with the weird pseudo-nationalist crowd on the right who have also adopted a more anti-Semitic stance lately. Tucker Carlson, one of their top pied pipers had this moron on his show pimping this nonsense and he sat their dutifully nodding his head, never once challenging his thesis about Churchill pushing poor uncle Adolph into a war of conquest he never wanted to fight. I get Carlson, he's a phony grifter who will go wherever he believes the prevailing headwinds are leading to make a buck, but the ill-informed people who tune into his show are another matter entirely.
3
One of the reasons the left throws around the word fascist is because it's a holdover habit from their grandpa Stalin. Stalin used to play the same game after the Nazi's attacked the USSR and Hitler's brand of totalitarianism fell out of favor, again. After the war, Stalin made the argument that any government that wasn't fascist was democratic. Therefore his totalitarian states in Poland and East Germany had to be democratic. Fascist became the insult de-jure for all time. These kids these days marching around burning stuff down like little nihilists have no clue what fascism is. They just say what they are told to say by their handlers, little automatons who want to stay in with the in crowd.
3
We say he was mad because we can't fathom ordering the death of an entire group of innocent people. That's evil, not madness. Hitler was an evil guy. Satan is real, demons are real, and when they are able to work through human agents the end result is wicked and incomprehensible to people not under such influence. Here's the thing, Hitler didn't personally shoot or gas millions of people, his underlings did. To declare him insane you have to declare every SS officer who participated in the slaughter, every Wehrmacht foot soldier who helped round people up and shot their fair share, and every bookworm who calculated the cost of killing on a mass scale nuts as well. Or were they just evil?
3
It's wrong to dismiss the power of vague promises. Politicians have a habit of making them and the ones who lay out a specific plan tend to lose because it paints them into corners and gives their opponents a platform to pick apart. Roosevelt was extremely vague about what his economic plans were in 1932 and he won in a landslide. Why? Because voters get more riled up about voting against something or someone than they do about voting for something or someone. Hitler, or someone like him, was inevitable because the idea that Germany had been betrayed and was being held down had been ingrained into the national psyche. German voters didn't have a crystal ball and it's always easier to see warning signs after an event occurs than before they happen. But the real lesson from Nazi Germany is that people will most always sacrifice freedom for security. COVID proved that rule is still valid. I believe the 2030s will be similar to the 1930s but I'm afraid the courage of men will fail this time around even more spectacularly than it did then. The beaches have been sufficiently softened and notions about liberty and traditional values are seen as arcane and mocked as relics of the past. The progressive utopia being pushed by the current crop of globalist elites has no room for such antiquated ideas and the infrastructure for dealing with subversives is already up and running. Free speech is hate speech and misinformation. Christian worship is white nationalism. Up is down, truth is subjective, morality is relative. But we have our creature comforts. And as long as we have those we are less apt to give a damn one way or another what happens to our neighbor. While we were busy looking out for 1984 they slipped a Brave New World in on us. And not too many want to take that red pill. Old republics never die, they just fade away.
2
By the fall of 1944 Speer was the one driving the bus when it came to production and such. Goering wasn't completely out of the picture but he was already planning on life after Hitler. He was focused on plundering art and looting Jewish estates and he was more into shooting up than he was playing soldier. After Dunkirk, The Battle of Britain, and Stalingrad his influence with the Führer was pretty much kaput. So you can take anything he had to say to his captors with two tons of salt. He was so deluded by that point that he was honestly shocked when Ike refused to meet with him as a brother officer. As to the question of why Hitler fought on, Tik hit it on the the head, unconditional surrender. Unconditional surrender was the brainchild of Roosevelt. He was convinced that the reason the war was even fought was because the German's didn't believe they had been whipped in 1918. Roosevelt believed the Allies messed up the end game by not marching into Berlin in 1919. He was determined not make the same mistake so he decided to make unconditional surrender the stated policy of the Allies. The Germans were going to know they had gotten their asses kicked this time around, no stab in the back nonsense was going to take root after this war. Stalin was all for it but Churchill was not. When Roosevelt pitched it to Churchill, Churchill argued against it, saying such a claim would make the Germans dig in and fight to the last man. He wasn't arguing for a negotiated peace with Hitler, he was arguing that if you made unconditional surrender a stated policy you took away any hope that the population might just quit on their own. Churchill thought he had talked Roosevelt out of it at Casablanca but then Roosevelt sandbagged him and blurted out that the only terms the allies would be willing to accept would be unconditional surrender. After that Churchill didn't have any choice but to go along with it and give the impression it was a joint decision but in reality he was pissed. It was also the point where the reality that Britain was now the junior partner began to sink in. By the time the Tehran Conference ended that reality was confirmed. Churchill knew Roosevelt was not a fan of the British Empire but he thought he could work him enough to soften his views. The problem was Roosevelt was the kind of guy whose views couldn't be softened and he understood that in politics as well as friendship, one person always has a dominant position. And if Roosevelt knew anything, he knew how to apply power. Roosevelt made good and damned sure Hitler would fight to the end. For his part, Hitler would have fought to the end anyway. He thought about how he would treat Churchill and company if he marched into their capitals, and said to himself, screw that. I'm not swinging from a rope for their entertainment. Unconditional surrender just guaranteed that his people would go along for the ride with him without a whole lot of prodding. Anyway, that is why that war was always going to fought to the bitter end, oil or no oil.
2
Cool video. It helps explain the leftists comfort with cognitive dissonance. 1 + 1 = what I want it to equal is sort of like black people can be white supremacist's. The struggle is essential to all of it because it harnesses emotion. Transgenderism is an example of the use of emotion to perpetuate the struggle. It riles people up on all sides. Embrace the chaos as we used to joke when I was in the military. It's too bad most people invested in the cult won't get it or will choose not to acknowledge it. It is a religion. If you don't get that going in, you will never understand the emotions it elicits. Good job. Thumbs up on this one, it's one that ought to be shared.
2
Hitler declared war on the U.S. for the simplest of reasons, it was what he wanted to do. He had it in his head that he was destined to lead Germany in a war against the democracies. It was always a matter when not if. In his way of thinking it made sense because they weren't just going to stand aside and let him conduct his war of annihilation against the Jews and other sub-humans while he grabbed living space in the East so why not get it on while the momentum was on his side. That was part of his destiny delusion as well.
2
So, one of the themes that seems to run through the thoughts of these third way types as they call themselves is freedom is fine as long as it is subordinated to the needs of the state. Tranny's and the like exercising their rights are given as examples of individual rights harming the rights of the collective. Fair enough. But the alternative they are pitching certainly isn't any better. I see the way they flip the argument where individual liberty and free-market capitalism is concerned, and yes, I will concede that transgenderism as well as a host of other social contagions are harmful to society and shredding the social compact. But submitting your individual liberty to the state is hardly the answer. It has an Orwellian flavor to it, slavery is freedom, that sort of thing. One thing is certain, history has shown the application of their ideology is just as deadly as the application of communism and capitalism, for all its flaws, has freed more people and saved more lives than those other failed systems. That's just a fact, and facts as John Adams famously said: "Are stubborn things."
2
I enjoy some of Tik's work. He does his homework and brings receipts. That said, he sometimes gets it wrong. This one, well, the reasoning is so convoluted and all over the place it's hard to point to any individual part as the point where the argument falls apart. He seems to gloss over some little event known as WWI. The empire was falling apart before they decided to pick that fight however. Their decision to expand in order to survive was the final nail in the Hapsburg coffin. Trying to rule a bunch of people who didn't have anything in common and didn't have any allegiance to the empire was a losing proposition. The bloated administrative state charged with overseeing this multi-cultural hodgepodge certainly didn't help end the decline which had been a slow ongoing process for a long time. Neither did the group of out of touch autocratic the old men at the top of the food chain. They governed like it was 1814, not 1914. So yeah, forcing a brand of autocratic nationalism on a bunch of people who have nothing in common is a recipe for disaster, no matter how many revisionist historians argue otherwise. It's a fact that dates back to the Roman Empire and as John Adams said: "Facts are stubborn things." I turned this one off at the 11:00 minute mark because the pretzel logic was just too hard to follow. Like I say, not one of the man's better videos. You don't have to dispute every conventional narrative Tik. Sometimes the prevailing argument is actually correct.
2
There may be some paper trail detailing Franco's support/sympathy for the Axis and their cause but there is nothing in his actions indicating he wanted to get into the fight. He had plenty of opportunities to help Hitler out, especially during the TORCH landings in North Africa in 42, but he maintained Spain's neutrality at every turn. He stayed out of it because he knew Spain would come out on the short end no matter which way the winds of war blew. He turned out to be correct when you consider he outlasted every last one of the combatants.
2
Ya gotta have a strong tolerance for cognitive dissonance if you want to be a part of the political left. This is because it's based on a false premise WRT human nature. It's like building a house with a cracked foundation. You know that eventually the crack will cause the structure to come down but until that day comes you live in it and don't worry about tomorrow. It's also why lefties don't care if they soil the carpets and kick a few holes in the wall. They know it's coming down anyway and they don't have a stake in it so why not have a bit of fun. I read about a memo one of RFK's associates wrote concerning the struggles they were experiencing as they tried to get their Bedford-Stuyvesant project off the ground. In the memo, Kennedy's colleague writes that as contradictory as it may seem, there were instances where the private sector did appear to be more efficient than the government. The fact that this guy, one of the best and the brightest wrote that speaks volumes about the universities that produce these titans of academia. True believers are always ineffective at best and dangerous at their worst.
2
I have read Ayn Rand's works. If you are miserable and looking for happiness...well, if you don't find it after reading The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged don't feel that you missed something or didn't get it. Sorry, but Rand is not the high priestess of happiness. That's just my take on it.
2
Hearing this made me think of that scene from the Big Lebowski where the Dude tells Walter he's being threatened by German nihilists: "They were nihilists? F*ck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenants of national socialism dude, at least it's an ethos." I think that gets lost in a lot of the discussions surrounding that gangster regime. Their evil was so off the charts that people tend to overlook the ideology behind it, as whacked as it may be. In order to be a true believer you have to have something to believe in. That may sound like an oversimplification but look around at these kids showing up for these social-media ordered riots. Sure, there is a cause de-jure, but a fair amount of them would show up because it's Tuesday. They are just raging against the machine. They feel like they have no stake in a world that has abandoned them so they want to see it torn down. And they just like breaking things and blowing sh*t up, like the trashman character out of The Stand. Our fallen nature in its rawest form.
2
For decades it was assumed that your IQ was set somewhere around the age of 20, though I have heard arguments for as low as 12. Regardless, studies have shown long exposure to the coven on the view will cause your IQ to drop. There may have even been a time when the panelists themselves were not as ignorant and stupid as they appear to be now. I recall interviews with whoopi many years ago where she was quite lucid. Now? Now her brain cells have been bought and paid for by the same white devils at disney she has been taught to despise since she was a kid. The self-loathing Caucasians on the show are putting on act, accept for maybe that redheaded dingbat who would probably calmly walk into a gas chamber herself if it was explained that she is being punished for being white. That blonde idiot probably didn't meet a black person until she was in her 30s. As for that navaro moron, she's a former bush republican who couldn't hack it in the actual world so she sold her soul to the lowest bidder. If it sounds like I'm being unfair, I guess I am. But we have to start calling these morons out because ignoring them has only emboldened their ilk. They aren't going away. It's like the character from the movie Hoosiers who tells the coach there are two kinds of crazy. The kind where a guy gets naked and howls at the moon and the kind where a guy gets naked and howls at the moon his front yard. The second one he's forced to deal with. The couple of dozen people who watch that mess may buy into the lies they spread, but abc knows exactly what they are doing and why, for years now, they have supported that loony bin and let it go on the way it has with no adult supervision. Got to keep that gay/woke score up there at a 10. Howard K. Smith must be rolling in his grave.
1
"There's no right. There's no wrong. There's only popular opinion." ― Jeffrey Goines: 12 Monkeys
1
The modern day polemicist at work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDmGhethEoQ
1
Marx wasn't even original. He lifted the dialectic historicism BS from Hagel. He said he was going to turn Hagel on his head. But all he really did was spew a bunch of nonsense. Rousseau really lies at the heart of it. I'm with the guy who said if he had a gun but only had two bullets and Stalin, Hitler, and Rousseau were standing in front of him he'd shoot Rousseau twice. Wanna understand the left, especially their propensity for violence and the whole propaganda of the deed horsesh*t that is in their ideologic DNA? Study the French Revolution. They've been fighting it in one form or fashion in one location or another for 234 years now. And spare me the rights of man garbage Jefferson helped them come up with. The guillotine was far more representative of what that mob had in their darkened hearts and its liberal use was its true legacy. The thing is, the vast majority of today's pseudo-revolutionaries with the Starbucks aps on their cellphones don't even understand the roots of their movement. They just like to break things and blow sh*t up. That's not Marxism or anarchism for that matter, just a bunch of nihilistic kids lashing out at the world for reasons that truly escape them. Such is life in a world under judgment. Hang on kiddies, this ride hasn't even really got started yet. The end of history? Don't expect some Marxist utopia, that's all I'm sayin.
1
That was very well done. A very unique, almost Freudian, analysis of Lenin and what made him tick. It could be true he feared being responsible for himself, or it could be a case of him just being a lazy sh*thead who thinks he knows more than others and work is beneath him. Our universities are chock-full of those types. Or perhaps it's a blend of the two. One thing all these tinhorn dictators have in common is a love for the lifestyle of the rich and famous. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, they all lived large while the rest of the country starved. It saddens me on one hand when kids who just flat out don't know any better wear Che tee-shirts and spout slogans based on Marxist nonsense because they think Che was a hero and Marx was a prophet. What pisses me off is when a U.S. city like Seattle allows a statue of a monster like Lenin to be erected but would tear down a statue of Lincoln if some BLM group or white-haired afro sporting TV revolutionary called for its removal. I found the stuff Volkogonov had to say about Lenin to be quite interesting. I had never heard of the guy before but I took a peak at his background and I'm going to find out more about him. It appears that he had a large set of balls and wasn't afraid to call a commie rat a commie rat. Maybe I'll try to read his book but to be honest, I tried reading a book on Stalin written by a Russian and man, that guy really had a laborious method of writing. Ya had to really be up on who was who in the zoo to get what he was saying and not being big on members of the central committee of 1920 and first Soviet congress I was lost, and bored. Anyway, maybe I'll try Volkogonov. Cool vid. Thanks for posting.
1
Here in the U.S. young people are extremely ignorant about history. The subject isn't taught properly so it's easy for people who behave like fascists to get away with calling their political opponents fascists. It's an old trick Stalin taught the left. The danger of course is the hardcore fascists call their opponents threats to democracy and it makes it easy for some kid to justify violence because who wouldn't want to stamp out Hitler. This is where the center starts to collapse and when the center can't hold bad things happen on a societal level. Sadly, that is the phase we are entering. God help us.
1
That was well done. Musk has been fed the Hitler was a madman narrative for his entire life so it is understandable when he says he can't get his around why Hitler behaved the way he did. I've said this before but it bears repeating, when you are dealing with a true believer you have to take him at his word. People dismissed Mein Kampf as posturing because they didn't believe in the ideology contained in it. They assumed no rational person would act on such beliefs and even if Hitler wanted to the aims were too ambitious. Just like people in the U.S. State and Defense departments dismissed Bin Laden when he was spouting out nonsense about a dark day for America being on the horizon. You dismiss true believers at your own peril. You may not believe in what they are burping up but they do, and true believers are willing to die for their cause. It's more than a belief system, it's central to their being. When in doubt refer to Occam's Razor. Simple explanations due tend to be correct.
1
“Allow me to draw a comparison in order to understand the effect of learning (or the lack thereof) upon our nature. Imagine that there are people living in a cave deep underground…They have lived here from infancy, with their legs and necks bound in chains. They cannot move. All they can do is stare directly forward, as the chains stop them from turning their heads around.” “Imagine that far above and behind them blazes a great fire. Between this fire and the captives, a low partition is erected along a path, something like puppeteers use to conceal themselves during their shows. Look and you will also see other people carrying objects back and forth along the partition…Undoubtedly, such captives would consider the truth to be nothing but the shadows of the carved objects ― Plato’s Allegory of the Cave
1
Was Churchill an idiot or the greatest Britain ever? A bit of both. Certainly he was a major pain in the ass for every military commander who had to deal with or placate him. His COS Allan Brooke is quoted as saying: "Winston had 10 ideas a day, one of which was good and he didn't know which one it was." Similar quotes have been attributed to Lloyd George and FDR but the general consensus seemed to be he was an idea man, not really concerned with the application. Eisenhower threatened to quit as SCAEFE because of Churchill's insistence that landing craft needed for OVERLORD be used in Italy and that ANVIL, the attack on southern France be abandoned while attacks into the Balkans be carried out. It was part of his obsession with the soft underbelly concept he carried over from WWI. And, he was more concerned about maintaining the British Empire in the post-war-world which Eisenhower didn't give one shit about and FDR was opposed to. The best no Ike used against Churchill was when he told him his forces would stop short of Berlin and leave it to the Russians. It held zero strategic value since it was already agreed it would be in the Russian zone after the war but Churchill had an18th/19th Century mindset about capturing capitals. Ike saved thousands of US lives by standing firm on that one. You would have thought the lack of ROI the Brits got for taking Philadelphia in 1777 would have taught him that lesson but Churchill was a man of the past in a lot of ways. I will give him credit, though not as much as he gave himself, for getting Marshall and Ike to give up their notions of attacking France in 1942. Marshall was hellbent on it and saw the North African campaign as a distraction, a way to further British interests. Ike was afraid the Russians would make a separate peace with the Nazis if they didn't open a second front in Europe by 1943 at the latest. But Churchill understood sending a handful of divisions against the Wehrmacht at that time was suicide. Personally, I think the botched landings at Dieppe were criminal on his part but that's me. But he did stand up to Hitler when most of the world thought he should back down, even forces in his own government. He did rally the people of London during the Blitz by visiting bombed out cities, something Goebbels tried to get the Fueler to do with no success. That counts for something. Another leader would have buckled. In that sense, he really did save western civilization. If Britain had fallen in 1940 or 41 the game would have been up. No way the Americans could have done what they did without Britain being a launchpad. Britain was the only major allied power to fight all the way, from 1939 to 1945. Churchill played a big role in that. Was he a sucky military commander? Sure. But that wasn't his job. His main job was to keep Britain fighting until the Americans came in. And he pulled that off so I'm a big fan of Winnie. The world certainly use statesmen of his stature and resilience today. RIP Winston, even though that disgrace of a president from Kenya didn't like ya for throwing his commie old man into jail (if he even was his daddy) you still have plenty of fans this side of the Atlantic.
1
Roosevelt didn't come up with unconditional surrender on a whim. He did believe that not marching into Berlin and proving the Germans had lost to the Germans in an up-close personal way played a role in militarism taking root in the 1930s. And there was a lot of truth to his belief. The thing is, Ulysses Grant had set the precedent 80 years before at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson. Then he made it a central part of the doctrine when he came East and gave Sherman permission smash the Confederacy to smithereens and make the populace feel the pain. Total war. Grant was very good at fighting it and most every general on all sides in WWII read his memoirs. An American tradition if you will. Unconditional surrender is tough but Grant proved it works. Roosevelt knew that going in. As far as Churchill being good with it or not, there is evidence on both sides of that argument. Churchill had good reason to not want unconditional surrender. He was fighting to keep the British Empire alive and in order to achieve that he needed Germany to act as a bulwark against the commies in post-war Europe. Maintaining a balance of power in Europe was something Britain had fought for going back to the days of Waterloo, even earlier for that matter. You don't get that if unconditional surrender is forced on Germany, not unless you turn the job over to the Americans which was a toss-up at best at that point in the war. Churchill knew Roosevelt would like nothing better than to see all empires go kaput, including and especially the British Empire, so the idea he would keep troops in Germany to hold off the Russians long term wasn't that strong. Churchill was a master at writing and rewriting history to make anything sound anyway he wanted so once unconditional surrender was settled, well of course Winnie was on board all day long. Hell, I'm surprised he didn't jump up and say: "It was my idea first," after Roosevelt kicked off. I don't buy that crap for a moment. Churchill was pissed when Roosevelt made the public announcement. There are enough sources who back up that claim and as I laid out, a weak Germany was not in the best interests of the Empire, anymore than a weak Empire was in Hitler's best interest. Anyway, that's my take on it. Did it prolong the war? That is a question that really can't be answered definitively. It sure was helpful as a motivator for Goebbels to use once things turned permanently south for the Reich. That much is known.
1
Sounds crazy? Could never happen in today's enlightened world? The CDC, an agency granted legitimacy by the United States government has said men can menstruate and breast-feed. If you don't think the alphabet jihad is a religion to the lunatics spewing the gender nonsense complete with high priestesses, ritual sacrifices and dances, and pagan creeds you haven't been paying attention. The man is right, people are hard wired to believe in a higher power of some sort to provide purpose to their lives. I've got good friends who disagree with me vehemently on this and their fervor kind of helps prove my point. Up is down and down is up these days but it's jumbled up for a specific purpose. And the motivations of the modern pagan's are not pure. That is a lesson you would have thought the Nazi's taught the world, but alas, people have a tendency to fail to learn that which is actually important.
1
You mention things were different for the Romans because of the treatment they received from their barbarian captors but only 6,000 of the 91,000 Germans captured at Stalingrad managed to make it back to Germany and only after serving a lot of hard time in the gulags. Doesn't sound like things were any better for the Germans than the Romans. Whose to say what they would do, but I have always been of the mind that as a regular soldier, if I knew what the Russians or Japanese had in store for me I would have gone out but not by my hand and not alone. But I suppose that's easy for me to say since I wasn't there facing that choice. Paulus got off easier than his men. Not that I have a lot of compassion for Nazi soldiers, but I'm sure a fair amount of draftees were wondering what the f*ck as they were freezing their asses off in Russia. Hitler sure was a f-head.
1
I've never been big on labels. I didn't know I was a conservative until I attended university. I knew I voted differently from most of my friends and family, but I just attributed it to liking a candidates record or disliking the record of his opponent. I always had this thing for voting for stuff that works. I grew up in a city dominated by unions and I was a long-haired club musician but I voted for Ronald Reagan, even though I was told he was out to destroy the working man. Well, I stood in the eight-hour unemployment line under Carter so I figured I may not know what Reagan will or won't do when it comes to the working class, but it didn't take a rocket scientist to see what Carter and his policies had done. Then again, I was the kid always sticking up for the cops in the 1960s. Even now, most of my family and friends are still left-wing and me, well I'm still in the camp of stuff that works versus stuff that doesn't. They are wrapped up around fairness, I know fair is a place where pigs get judged. I was a leadership facilitator and I used to challenge my students to find the word fair in our founding documents. It's not there because our founders knew it was unattainable. The real difference boils down to the social contract and which camp you fall in. The Hobbesian camp see's people as absolutely irremeable, in need of a strong hand to keep the unwashed masses in check. Right-wing police states in South and Central America during the Cold war were examples of that. If you believe Rousseau, you believe our nature is not fixed, that it is corrupted by the ruling class and with the right training we can return to our original state, which was basically a worldwide kumbaya moment where everyone got along. Of course, there is no evidence for this but feelings play a large role for people in this group. Socialists fall into this camp, but socialism is actually a stage of history to a true believer, not an ideology in and of itself. Communism is the natural end of history for this bunch, the dissolving away of government because it is no longer needed. A return to our proper nature, Heaven on Earth if you will, which why you can't be a Communist and believe in God. Communism only works if people are perfectible, a belief that runs contrary to most religions, at least the Abrahamic ones. The third group follows Locke's view of the social contract. Locke is the middle way. Yes, people are mean and brutish by nature, but if they have enough resources and are allowed to govern their own affairs they will figure it out and get along based on self-interest, which is how we are wired anyway. The American system is based on Locke, at least it used to be when people played by the rules set out in the Constitution. If you get the three interpretations of the social contract you get the left versus right argument. Feelings versus results, the belief in a better world to come after we die or while are alive, the need for God or the need for people to just be a bit better educated. Build a better man you get a better world. Years ago, after the Berlin Wall fell, the idea was floated that we had reached an end of history, that we had outgrown ideology and were about to enter a golden age. We all believe the lies we want at some point don't we.
1
Interesting video. But I disagree with that scenario where the U.S. would get involved in a war against the Soviet Union. FDR did not have anti-communist views and a lot of his advisors had gone to the USSR in the 1920s and got roped in by Stalin's magical mystery tour of the socialist utopia. There was no reason FDR could have given the American people to go to war at that stage to fight communism. It is true though that Hitler saw Britain almost as a blood relation and wanted to work out some sort of arrangement with them but Churchill and others who saw him for the thug he was stood in the way of that.
1
@socire72 Roosevelt was not president in the 1920s.
1
@AFGuidesHD I've heard more than a few make that claim. I can't recall their names because quite frankly I dismissed their arguments out-of-hand. As for Poland waiting around for the Führer to finish off France and then join up with Germany to fight against the Soviets? Literally, who says that? Poland, the world for that matter, was under no illusions as far as who Hitler's next target was after he finished off the Czechs. It wasn't France.
1
Interesting. I recommend reading Return of the Gods by Johnathan Cohn. You may not agree with all his assertions but he makes a compelling argument for malevolent forces being let loose in our times. Something or someone has their thumb on the crazy scale, that fact is in our face these days. Girls will be boys and boys will be girls. It is a mixed up world we inhabit.
1
Good analogy.
1
There are plenty of examples that some people are currently living in a post-truth world and they do it for a variety of reasons. Some do it to fit in, not only going along with a litany of lies but championing them as well to show the other members of the club their loyalty first and foremost is to the clan. It's the kind of behavior adolescents exhibit during the stage of development where association with a group is the central point of focus. Most people grow out of it, some people become angry cynical loners. They are the argumentative type because they never did find a group willing to accept them during that stage of development so they carry those resentments like luggage and lash out at the world until they find some sort of internal resolution. Others don't believe the lie but they don't speak out against it either because they are afraid of the consequences. The Soviets employed intimidation to control people and the lie was a big part of it making it all work. They didn't care if you believed the lie, so long as you lived it. In fact, that was the ultimate exercise of power, making people act like they believed things they knew were not true. They did so because they were afraid of what would happen if they dissented. The LGBT fascists picked up on that and are doing their best to employ those tactics in pursuit of their agenda. The thing is, they are being controlled by an even more insidious and nefarious faction who use them as a bludgeon to brow-beat their political and social rivals into submission. And with each small victory, they inch further ahead, the whole frog gradually boiling in the water routine. Again it's not the lie, it's not a matter of you believing the lie, it's a matter of you living it, saying nothing when you know you are being lied to, accepting the lie as a cultural norm. We all know a man can't be a woman, yet most of society just looks the other way, unless it directly affects them, then they are forced to deal with it. But they almost always find themselves on an island because the institutions that used to protect society from demonic contagions have either abdicated that role, like the church, or have gotten in league with the demons, like the government. But at the end of the day problem is always the same. The problem is us. The problem is always living the lie and accepting that this is just the way things are in a post-truth, post-constitution, post-faith world where the father of all lies is now allowed to operate in the open. "And thus, overcoming our temerity, let each man choose: Will he remain a witting servant of the lies (needless to say, not due to natural predisposition, but in order to provide a living for the family, to rear the children in the spirit of lies!), or has the time come for him to stand straight as an honest man, worthy of the respect of his children and contemporaries?... If we shrink away, then let us cease complaining that someone does not let us draw breath—we do it to ourselves! Let us then cower and hunker down, while our comrades bring closer the day when our thoughts can be read and our genes altered." ― Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Live Not By Lies A time for choosing.
1
You can rationalize anything when your back is against the wall. The American Confederates were grabbing slaves off the plantations and establishing black units in 1865. One of the Southern senators resigned over the issue, saying it negated their entire argument for why the war had to be fought. At least he was an honest bigot. Himmler did have more than a few screws loose. He was the most ardent ideologue among the ranking Nazi's and a lot of his fervor seems to be based in his own insecurities since he was one of the few who didn't fight in the First World War. He was also young when he joined the party so there was probably a lot of twisted idealism in his dark soul. True believers like Himmler will go to great lengths to defend the cult because so much of their identity is wrapped up in it. If it's a lie, and their worldview turns out to be hogwash their whole world comes crashing down. That Southern senator understood that and that's why he got off the train when the racialist belief system that undergirded the Confederacy turned out to be a bunch of horsesh*t. For the Confederacy, It was always a question of free labor, always an economic matter. The planters didn't want to pay their field hands and they thought they would lose their free labor if they remained in the Union. The Nazi's wanted were greedy SOB's who wanted to grab the Jews property and create a slave class to work the plantations they wanted to establish in the East. Like Joe Pesci said in the movie Casino: "It's always about the dollars."
1
Bit*h and bast*rd get self-censored but taking the LORD's name in vain is okay?
1
I like your channel TIK. I have seen enough of your stuff to know you are sincere. I haven't always agreed with your assertions and /or conclusions and I'm not familiar with a lot of your sources but that is what makes it cool. I have a traditional liberal arts degree, roughly split 50/50 between history and political science. I think in order to get one you need to study the other. But I attended school decades ago and I went to a school that wasn't dominated by left-wing professors. We had em, but there were more conservative and professors who played it neutral so it wasn't hard to avoid the lefty's. That said, history is one of those disciplines you don't need a ton of formal training to be good at. It's story telling. David McCullough was a very good historian who had a degree in English. Based on what I've seen you prefer the more technical writers, guys who get into more into the weeds with the data. That is okay provided they don't just take their brain out for a walk and toss a bunch of useless facts out there to seem smart. I read a terrible book called The British are Coming where the guy actually broke down the number of knots on a British mooring line and how much cannon shot each ship held, ad nauseum. Then there was a book on Stalin where the author just assumed you knew all about the makeup of the Politburo in the 1930s and just tossed a bunch of names out there. It was so thick it actually injured my brain. As for the History Channel going Ancient Alien, I think that had more to do with production costs than anything else. The age of reality-tv killed channels like the History Channel and A&E. It killed politics too but I digress. Reality-tv was cheap and there was an audience for it. TV has been dumbing down western civilization for close to 80 years now. As time has gone on, attention spans have shrunk and sound-bites are all the rage. Then there is the built-in bias. People like information that affirms them and are less likely to listen to opposing points of view. And commentators on both side play fast and loose with the facts. You are just as likely to hear BS from Tucker Carlson as you are from MSNBC. I heard Tucker say, in absolute terms, no question about it, that the CIA killed JFK. Now, he has no facts to back that up, but I'm sure someone on his staff told him the demographic he was appealing to held that belief so he puts it out there and people are like: "Well, if Tucker said it it must be true." I call it "The Mr. Spock Affect." When I was a kid, anything Leonard Nimoy said was taken as gospel. He was Mr. Spock, the logical super-genius who bailed the emotion-driven Captain Kirk out of jams every week. So, if he was a genius there, he must be a genius in everything. I saw a film at a science museum in the 1970s that talked about tera-forming Mars. Now, you know NASA was behind it because people were bored with Apollo and funds were drying up. So they made up a bunch of BS and paid Spock to sell it like soap. Us kids were impressed that's for sure. Neil de Grasse Tyson is the latest version of Mr. Spock. He's a TV celebrity astrophysicist completely full of himself so he comments on everything from climate change to transgenderism, always falling on the side of the camp he belongs to because we are tribal. This has been a long rant and I know no one will read it but I say all of it because as Orwell said: "He who controls the past controls the present. He who controls the present controls the future." It's important that people fact-check what they hear, but information is so manipulated anymore it's getting tougher to do it, at least digitally. My advice, by books, hardcover books. They are the best reference sources and the way things are going they may be worth their weight in gold, at least if the ones calling themselves the elites get their evil grimy paws on power. Like I say, long rant, but keep up the good work TIK. We need more like you and less "professionals" and "experts."
1
That's true, but Germany didn't have any aircraft carriers and the Japanese may have had some but they couldn't afford to lose even a few because there was no way they could replace them, and the pilots who flew the aircraft at the same rate as the U.S. Yamamoto knew this which is why he was hellbent on taking as much as he could by the middle of 1942. It was the only shot Japan had of a negotiated settlement and when they got smoked at Midway the game was up for Japan. The lack of long-range four-engine bomber's also came back to bite the Führer in the ass when he went up against the Soviets.
1
A little off-topic but that looks like a Gibson SG off to the left. If so, nice. I always liked the SG.
1
That was a good talk. So much Monday morning quarterbacking went on after the war with regard to Ike's strategy. I suppose that's a natural hazard considering the wide front approach, plenty of generals, a lot of ground to cover, and egos just as expansive. The bottom line is the strategy worked and Ike made it work by balancing competing egos and nationalities with a clear eye on the objective, killing Germans and ending the war. That same confidence in himself helped Eisenhower resist the calls to beat the Russians to Berlin. If it didn't fit in the big picture, it wasn't worth exploring. Ike did a helluva job for the role he was given. I don't think any general, Marshall included, could have pulled it off any more smoothly. Good analysis and no, I don't think you are pro-British, Canadian, or German for that matter, as some have accused you. I don't always agree with your conclusions but you certainly do your homework, a trait sorely lacking in a lot of other videos. Well done.
1
I'm not a subscriber to your channel but I enjoy enough of your content to watch one if the title catches my attention. You seem sincere so here's some free advice learned through bitter tears, lose this desire to reach the unreachable. You used the term "I need" a lot. Maybe it's a bit of that old socialist gene at work. One aspect you didn't touch on is a lot of socialists are crusaders. They see saving people as part of their mission. I was embedded with a Canadian unit for a time when I was in the military and I remember having a cup of coffee one morning with a colleague. He was a good guy, best of intentions type, and this clip came on the TV showing this guy who was I imagine homeless, sitting on a grate trying to stay warm. My colleague said: "We have to help that man" and I asked him a simple question; why? Maybe he didn't want to be helped. Maybe he preferred being outside to being in a shelter. Maybe he just wanted to be left alone. It's the same way with the socialists you are trying to educate. Instead of using Genesis to make your point, I recommend Plato's Allegory of the Cave. I think it's more in-line with your worldview and it does a better job explaining why people prefer living a lie to knowing the truth. If you want a Biblical reference, think of yourself as John the Baptist or one of the earlier prophets who tried to warn Israel about their fate if they continued on the path they were on. They were all killed for their effort as well. I also think, based on what I heard in this video, that there is a not insignificant gulf between European and American ideas on socialism and left-wing politics in general. Britain has a longer history of being a nanny state so I imagine that explains some of it. American left-wing politics is less about economics and more about cultural issues. Where socialists in Britain may think it is the exploiting capitalists who are stealing from them, in the U.S., we see the state playing that role, taking what they haven't earned and giving it to people even less deserving to win votes and ensure political loyalty. We call it keeping people on the government plantation. Your description sounded more like a bad case of external locus of control resulting in a nihilistic outlook, more black than red-pilled. Here, the middle class is feeling that way but again, it is because of a sense that our government has become an oligarchy of elites who don't care what the voters want, they want to give our sovereignty away to globalist elites who they have more in common with. That is what that commenter meant when he said socialists want to control others. They largely have on your side of the pond for the past century, so perhaps you are more adapted to it. Here, it is a relatively new phenomena, at least to the level it has risen to since obama turned yes we can into yes we did. Government has been growing since FDR, but at a leisurely pace. Now the left has stepped on the accelerator and the governor has been switched off. It's full-speed ahead, damn the torpedo's kind of stuff. That has a lot of people freaked out over here, especially when you throw in the demonic element of the LGB storm troopers transing the kids and insisting that us religious bigots bake the cake and celebrate their abominations. When he talks about the desire to have power over others, that is what he is getting at. Like I say, this authoritarin approach is still fairly new to us. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to break it down. Most of my friends are left-wing but they are left-wing in the same sense that Kennedy and Truman were left-wing. They vote democrat out of habit and are largely in denial about what that party has devolved into. But us older coots are moving along, even though they cling to power in our legislature. We have left quite a mess for millennials and gen-z to clean up. God help us.
1
An interesting take on it. Not out of the realm of possibility, provided you assume that Hitler did not expect Great Britain or the U.S. to come to the aid of the Soviet Union. The theory works if Hitler was convinced he could knock off the USSR in short order and once that was done he could pick up where he left off with the Battle of Britain. Of course, if this was the case, you have to account for why Hitler would let Goering waste such a large potion of the Luftwaffe during that battle. Unless Hitler just assumed the Wehrmacht could handle Russia with minimum air support. Like I say, it's an interesting take but there are a few points that weren't covered here that need to be fleshed out before I'll buy the 4-D chess stuff. Personally I think Hitler was itching for a fight and bombing England wasn't nearly as exhilarating as his campaigns against Poland and France. Hitler liked land battles. He liked directing armies and he really didn't know much about naval or air combat. He wanted to get back into the game and he wanted the land in the East. He figured the longer he waited the stronger Russia would get and when he saw how the Finns held them off he was convinced he could capture Moscow by October. His pal Mussolini through a monkey in the wrench when he decided to make a move against Greece without consulting the Führer and when he f-d that job up Hitler felt compelled to quiet things down on his flank before moving East. That pushed his attack plans back and that delay put Hitler outside Moscow right when winter was settling in. Hitler's whole notion about "all you have to do is kick the door open" went out the window at that point and that as they say was that. I don't see any 4-D chess, just a case of Hitler being Hitler and doing what Hitler did because he was Hitler. In short, he just felt like it. As for Stalin being caught off guard, you have to realize that Stalin assumed everyone thought like he did. He wouldn't have attacked at that time so he couldn't envision a scenario where Hitler would. He knew they were going to fight eventually but he was also influenced by the performance of the Red Army against Finland. Stalin's chickens had come home to roost and he got a glimpse of what a peoples army looks like when you knock off most of the competent officers. Stalin was a realist. He knew he needed to rebuild his army from the top down and he needed time. He dismissed reports of German intentions because he didn't want to believe them and because he knew he needed time to prepare for the inevitable fight. It's not that he trusted Hitler, he didn't want to provoke him is all. Of course, it didn't take much to provoke Adolph. Just being there was enough to provide the impetus for an attack. Like Hitler was being Hitler, Stalin was being Stalin. Stalin was convinced the Central Committee would have him shot after the first week and when the party officials and generals showed up at his door after he had gone into hiding he thought that was it for him. But of course it wasn't. They didn't know what the hell to do either. They needed Stalin so Stalin got a pass. That is one of the most tragic moments in WWII, the day they let Stalin off the hook. Oh well. Cool video. Interesting theory.
1
Hmmm...so what your saying is, if you go from spending crazy amounts of money to spending even crazier amounts of money when your national debt is so huge that servicing the interest on it already eats up a large portion of your budget there is a good chance you will wreck your economy? And since the economies around the world are all married at the hip you end up wrecking them as well? 🤔Gee, it's a good thing we learned that less...um...🤔never mind. It's all fun and games until there are too many people in the cart and too few pulling it. Then again, it's just paper so normal rules of macroeconomics don't apply...right?
1
Patton acted like a bully. He had the mind of a general but lacked the temperament required for overall command of ground troops in an operation like Overlord. Ike was already stuck with Monty, there was no way he was going to put Patton back in the pit with him, not after their squabbles in North Africa and Sicily. Bradley had the temperament to work with Monty but in the end his patience wore thin and he could barely stand to be in the same room with the guy. But Bradley didn't have Patton's instincts. Ike knew that which is why he went to bat for Patton when Marshall and others thought he should be sent home. One has to wonder if the Soviets played any role in getting the slapping story out there. Patton's views on the commies were well known and the communists had people in key positions in the American and British press, enough to stir the pot and spin stories in a way favorable to their interests. Just a thought. As for the killing of prisoners, a lot of that went on. It only takes a few false surrenders to make guys on the ground weary of taking prisoners. I recall hearing a story about a young journalist who was covering the war in the Pacific and during his first island landing he saw a marine casually tossing pebbles into the skull of a dead Japanese soldier as he took a smoke break. He was appalled but when he mentioned it to his colleague who had covered a few battles, the older reporter told the younger man to give it time and see how he felt in a year or so. By the time he got to Okinawa, and had seen how viscous the fighting was and how badly the Japanese had treated POW's and civilian's he admitted if he had seen that same marine tossing those pebbles he probably would have sat next to him and made a game of it. There is some truth to the idea of victor's justice. Curtis LeMay said that had the Allies lost he would have been put on trial for his firebombing strategy and Robert Jackson, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and the lead prosecutor at Nuremberg was among those who thought the Allies were on shaky legal ground when it came to charges like conducting wars of aggression and even crimes against humanity. War is a crappy business. I say that as someone who served for more than 20 years and any general who slapped an enlisted man would have lost my respect. But that's me.
1
Instead of saying Marx was imitating someone else by avoiding work, why not go the Occam's Razor route and simply say he avoided work because he was self-absorbed and lazy? I have met my share of armchair philosophers who have that trait in common. As for Marx and God, a lot of people claim to be atheists but at the end of the day it's not that they don't believe in Him, they just don't want to recognize His authority or are mad at Him for some other reason. Hagel believed in a Geist that moved history along, so it would make sense that Marx would as well. Marx is like that grifter who shows up without being invited and then sleeps on the couch and eats your food until you show him the door. I know, I have helped people out who have behaved in a similar fashion. The deeper you go trying to explain Marx the more weight you lend him. For me anyway, he was just a guy who was full of sh*t and he had a gift for finding gullible people who could be convinced he was actually a genius. A cynical bullshi*t artist. But like I say, I try to keep things simple. We aren't as complicated as we make ourselves out to be. As Al Pacino said in his role as Lucifer in the movie The Devil's Advocate: "Vanity, definitely my favorite sin."
1
I'm pretty sure if you asked that woman about her ideology she would say something along the lines of: "Well, as you know, ideology is important to me. We all have ideas, and ideas are important because after all that is where ideas come from. I remember the commercial when I was a middle class kid that talked about the mind being a terrible thing and how it must be stopped in our lifetime and that is why I'm running for president."
1
I saw a bit of an interview with one of these "The poor Führer was forced into a larger war by the warmongering imperialist Winston Churchill" types on Tucker Carlson's podcast, or whatever it is he does. Tucker sat there like a bobble-head letting this moron spew his nonsense, not once challenging the guy because I suppose it fit in with Tucker's brand of anti-Semitism. The problem is Carlson is one of the pied pipers for a lot of the new Godless right and since they are an ignorant lot they will just assume it's true. Otherwise Tucker wouldn't have him on his show. Never mind that Tucker also accuses the CIA of assassinating Kennedy without a shred of evidence and his "guest" list includes such paragons of virtue as the Tate brothers, Putin, and some chuckleheaded member of the Qatari government who is...well absolutely not anti anything. And people wonder why I'm not a joiner. Go figure.
1