Comments by "Voryn Rosethorn" (@vorynrosethorn903) on "Rudolf Jung - the Karl Marx of Hitler's National Socialism?" video.

It should be remembered that this was under the direct influence of nationalism. Which sort a new political settlement, for a long period of time the relationship of these groups to the state was feudal, they specific rights and obligations codified in relationship to the Crown, and were largely autonomous in practicality. Thus different groups of many different characters lived within the same national boundaries. Nationalism sort to standardise a lot of the regional distinctions, and in regards to the very large portion of minorities throughout many of these states the solutions were criminal. Russia operated the same way before communism, and Prussia had large Polish and Germanised Slavic populations. Basically the whole of eastern Europe was quite like the Balkans, but with people who had a long history of cooperation under a shared dynastic and religious framework. This is one of the lesser known issues with the spread of liberalism, the old kingdoms tried to enforce common identity and language, largely on the advice of whig reformers, but a dialect is very different from a language and the extensive freedoms and flexibilities of such states were exactly because they operated in very large part with the consent of the population, the communists would show exactly how enforcing such changes kills civil society and massively weakens the state itself despite modernisation, Russia a century ago could call on the loyalties of vast and diversely skilled populations, even after the massive weakening of such relationships by reforms undermining foundational social institutions, forced integration policies and the growth in a deeply flawed bureaucratic system increasingly taking over from autonomous powers which functioned rather than sticking to mismanagement in the centre (this was a major problem, the Cossacks were in major economic crisis by 1914 as a result of terribly thought out bureaucratic policies, likewise the logistical and support corps of the Russian army were the epicentre both of corruption and revolution, as it was made up of people who used connections for a cushy time in service). That Russia was still competitively a vastly more formidable a power than the one the Soviets left behind them, and that was at it's greatest crescendo of crisis. Austria-Hungary had never been brilliantly led, but it was still an established power and a leader in culture and fashion. It's path was far rosier than the one it's constituent people's ultimately experienced, or indeed the future all European are currently confronting.
42
@ This is a deep flaw in democratic systems as these groups become political blocks. Politics becomes a struggle over resources and the state becomes a tool for internal conflict. Empire can be overly generalised as they have different state structures, for most of the last two hundred years Europeans thought there was only one empire, Rome, but were in dispute over whether the emperor was in the east or west. States which give a good deal of local autonomy are basically one of only two types of states that can remain stable in spite of diversity, the other kind is totalitarianism, which goes back to legalism (the Chinese philosophy) and the first emperor of china. In terms of feudal states Russia was a success story for the most part, and while Austria was a dynastic success story and the problems are very largely over stated they did much less with more, those one has to remember that Austria carried on centuries of gruelling war defending europe from a military giant just as one should remember that the Russians lived on a plane, to the north of steppe, the Eurasian steppe, their society is remarkable for surviving at all, that they thrived would be unprecedented if not for Prussia, which was likewise forged in hardship and against odds.
4
@ It can be attributed to a population surplus caused by the introduction of western agriculture, sanitation and medical care. Colonial empires with few exceptions were financial drains, and the current international order is far more exploitative as it hides under liberation that if you pay off the leadership you don't need to invest in infrastructure or bother much with maintaining a functioning political system. The border peoples of the austrian empire were very largely derived of immigrants and refugees from the subject peoples of the ottoman empire (the famous hussars came from fleeing Serb nobles), and they formed frontier military settlements much like the cossacks and lived in almost perpetual conflict protecting from raids and serving in the military campaigning of the state forces. Likewise the Croatians were known for loyalty to the empire just as the Germans and Czechs were. The Hungarians and Romanians were the most bitter (though in the Romanian case mostly at the Hungarians), and the Serbs would only after their own state came about and they weren't in it. People in historical Europe didn't think about things in a modern way.
4
Look, I don't know how many times people have told you this but altruism obviously does not make sense in an individualist moral framework, it's just that very few people in the past had such a moral system as they were engaged in group strategies and the social structures were descendents of the clan system.
2
The theory on Hitler's God is wrong, I looked into it, that symbol is given meaning (made up meaning not corresponding very closely to the historical) by one of the esoterics that influenced the movement in its foundational roots. Interestingly the modern ones have an interpretation very current in Christian orientated academia at the time, that the Germanic people's (the A word because they also counted Slavs and Celts, though different people categorised them so that historical groups they liked were in their one) were the descendants of Noah and that the elite noble class had retained mystical truths of that time but even they and especially the lower orders had devolved, thus Christ corrected, but also made them the chosen as those who rejected him became servants of the devil rather than remaining as they were. As they saw it the perfection of their people was realised by the correction, but they had always been the most pure descendants of Adam. A lot of this is to do with the Scythians and the Goths (who they think are the Royal Bloodline of Scythia). Odin is thought to have been a descendent of Noah who like Rurik became idolized over time as they sunk into ancestor veneration in a twisted acknowledgement of their ultimate father. As said this is an interpretation the most historically obsessed ones are offering now, and they are mostly getting it from figures and books prominent at the time of the authentic movement. It does allow them to reconcile their Darwinist beliefs with the Christian norms and perspective of the time.
2
The whole German working things is the per capita meme again, it's proportional, duh.
1