Comments by "Voryn Rosethorn" (@vorynrosethorn903) on "The REAL ‘life’ of KARL MARX" video.

  1. These people usually were directly influenced by each others work. At this point most of them had similar ethnic background, but the liberal thinkers before them (so the enlightenment guys) were usually either lapsed Calvinists or theologically atheist/mystic mumbo jumbo, some funding always came from a certain group as they supported pluralism for obvious reasons (and have always seen bribery as a decent method of creating a favourable environment), but it's only once their own children started secularising and becoming liberal revolutionaries that any sort of firm network of finance was set up to promote it, and even then it was often a means of support by family unless revolution looked to actually be on the cards. Lenin got massive funding from them, but only in 1917, before that he mostly lived within the existing socialist network.
    3
  2. Depends on the woman, most just like social prestige and confidence, a reflection of their father is another common one. There are however autistic women, and academia is full of women who idolize the general appearance of intelligence, and will be in awe of a man who sounds clever without much concern for what he said, if it's right or why it matters. Generally there is also a class distinction, people talk all the time about female fantasies, but most of the ones they talk about only apply to some women. Just as men have very different tastes depending on who they are it is the same with women. Given Tik is in a social context he will have a particular experience, but if he ran in other circles he would find very different people, though as a general rule women are socially suggestable and thus media has had a large influence in normalizing certain attitudes, America has large populations of Christians and once you get into such belief systems the value set is markedly outside the norms integrated into popular culture by media narratives.
    2
  3. Ok, the meaning of what you wanted to know is that North America was the most liberal state at the time, patriarchy is another way of understanding the system of monarchy, it is a political system evolved out of the patriarchal role of clan fathers, and within Christianity it is a hierarchical reflection of the relationship of God to the universe, in other words patriarchy is meant as the imitation of the God of the world by the King's of the world, or the emperor (the Roman emperor being the secular head of the Church, and why the Pope created the Holy Roman Emperor, as well as the centre of much of Europe's political drama prior to the reformation, this is also why Moscow is the Third Rome) if you are getting into the medieval and period Russian conception of the role of monarchy. He means that he rejects the divine mandate of kings, and is willing to accept or even praise the slavery of individuals or people's if it means freedom from patriarchal government in the form of monarchies, this could also be applied to aristocracy, as they are a rug down the same hierarchy. This does not mean that Marx did not like the lifestyle of aristocrats, just that he wanted to make a system in which his logic decided who they would be (his friends and himself no doubt) and without the concepts of responsibility and duty that are inherent to most justifications of aristocratic power and wealth. This is part of the reason why the aristocratic power of the communist elites proved to be so much worse than previous elites towards their population, they have a responsibility to the idea, not the people. You could tease out more, but to a liberal of the period what he said made total sense, even if it would be more than controversial among politically liberal evangelicals and non-conformists (this was the period of the Christian revival, there were tons of 'Christian' socialists), who were very anti-slavery.
    2