Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "TIKhistory" channel.

TIK, I think you should look into Dualism, Gnosticism is a spawn of the Dualistic religion, for which has infected and spawned most especially from the East Asian religions, it seems to me Confucianism is a Dualist religion of this like that originated least in part in some pagan religion that was mostly overtaken by Dualist doctrine.
1
It is unfortunate that he completely disregards that Comte's definition of altruism that he uses would inherently make Christianity anti-altruistic which would undermine his dig at true Christian faith, it does work for Catholicism and works salvation churches though.
1
Looking at his track record and his logic, and the source of all our modern historical interpretations surrounding Hitler's "insanity" (Halder) and the fact that source also has a massive record of successful manipulations, seems a bit one sided tbh.
1
@romany8125 What do mean by "Christian canon"?
1
@romany8125 You're using the word to mean something yet can't define it? That can mean any number of things, Protestants don't recognize such stuff as that as a "canon" whatever that means so that argument neither works, neither is their one tradition of Protestantism and Reformed.
1
@romany8125 That doesn't make any sense to Eastern Orthodox nor Protestants.
1
@romany8125 "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil." - Romans 16:17-19 "But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men corrupted in mind and disqualified regarding the faith. But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men." - 2 Timothy 3:1-9 "Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." - Philippians 2:4
1
@romany8125 Read Romans 16:17-19, 2 Timothy 3:1-9, and Philippians 2:4
1
@romany8125 Read Romans 16:17-19, 2 Timothy 3:1-9, and Philippians 2:4
1
@ZARK0_ Why do you trust wikipedia here? Surely the English dictionaries would be more trustworthy then anything wikipedia puts out.
1
@benholroyd5221 It is possible, it sort of existed before the Victorian age in areas with Merchant Republics and in England, however with the centralization of governments and the formation of government economic oversight following between the Renaissance to the Napoleonic wars, you started seeing more and more governments embracing a form of economic intervention, since then almost no government has been true laissez-faire, even when governments resorted to short-term laissez-faire-like policies, they did not abolish regulations and business interventions, they just cut back and toned them down to be hard to notice. The Pre-20s (generally starting from Andrew Jackson's presidency) US and the first half of Interwar Germany were perfect examples of half attempts at laissez-faire, however government systems and regulations did still exist, and the banks were still mostly operated at government discretion. A true permanent laissez-faire government would only barely operate in any regard on its own and would do very little at any time. (and would take decades to establish any capability to enforce its will upon the economy if it suddenly did go interventionist) They'd also probably have less "democratic" processes involved as giving people the ability to vote means they'll most certainly eventually vote for someone to print money for them.
1
@benholroyd5221 Well we didn't used to have economies with boom and bust and they were as far as even an extreme libertarian ideal was concerned absolutely free, but as the logistics and capable power of centralized authorities rose, (alongside raising decadence which also marginally accelerated the process) we lost the capability to call our economies free in a justified sense. (more akin to semi-free as we create governments and banks to handle the exchange which always became massive centralized monopolies) Also I tend to get a bit annoyed with the whole "No True Scotsman" concept as when it does apply to a fallacious argument you can straight up point to the fallacy and argue against the point without it, otherwise people use it as an unjustified whipping bat imo. In this case if it was a "No True Scotsman" at some point, I'd rather ask how we define a free economy first before we ask has there been any. (which the no true scotsman focuses way too hard on when a true argument imo shouldn't) If we define free as left to its own devices and operating independent of non-economic principles, then you can apply "free economy" in that manner without ever contemplating some no true scotsman line. Also I believe as far as economics go, we should give everyone the ability to do completely as they will (granted it does not infringe general rights endowed by God, which I mostly refer to the US Constitution for) and let economic and social pressures determine the success and failure of individuals, which includes breaking promises. The only case for government in my opinion is to punish the wicked acts we can persecute (as in post-crime, no pre-crime crap) and preserve the innocence that remains.
1
@benholroyd5221 That's not what they mean by boom and bust, economic cycles aren't that slow, the longest periods tend to be less then 20 years. (and even then it wouldn't last through an nation that collapses, its no longer cohesive economy)
1
@benholroyd5221 "That's my point. You are always going to get unexpected shocks, no matter how resilient or perfect the economy is, eventually one of those will tip the economy over the edge." This is an erroneous argument tho, a bust isn't just an downturn on the economy. You can't just apply terms that have similar enough meaning if they don't apply semantically, especially in scope. Also it doesn't tip the economy, the economy succeeds on its own despite the intervention in it, its self-correcting, "shocks" don't change that, instead they reveal the lies and holes that propped up the systems that don't work. It shines light on the infection of the system, not damages it, now that its visible it would be easier to clean if everyone wasn't so lazy and cowardly. "Things tended to move slower in ye olden days" They really don't, economies don't move slower as you go back in time, they decrease in scope, an economy in Rome for example wasn't consolidated and outside of the Roman government and infrastructure, (which mostly relied on specific massive cohesive economies to transfer its finances through) all economic systems were local. This applies to all economies regarding logistics beyond capable interactions, economies are fast and capable, they act independently. The same applies to market crashes, first off stock market crashes don't actually expand that far into the economy, everyone makes a bigger deal about them then they actually are, they most specifically don't even tend to effect small and intermediate businesses, especially when we talk about recessions, as explained in the video many private non-industrial businesses tend to make out better in a recession. The people who pay are the industrial businesses and employees and those who pay into the fear. (who are already partway stealing money via the government anyway) "so I have no problem believing that a recession could last 50?" I do because that never happened before and the first time it happened was only when the government stuck its hand into the businesses and destroyed the market, (keeping it down for decades) it took less then 2 years for the economy to recover from the 1921 economy, and the government wasn't even going full laissez-faire. Two years from the worst economy ever seen to the best. The next time it happened the government went full in and it lasted just over 15 years, and even then multiple other economies with less regulation made out better in a shorter time. And every time a recession hits its the same thing. "Fall of Rome?" The fall of Rome wasn't an economic failure, it was a socio-political one, it was corrupted and even then for near two centuries most people outside of the city didn't even notice, the economy most certainly didn't take a hit, it operated how it always had, they just had less regulative measures and less taxes going towards a large central government. (instead you had small dukes, kings, and counts which required way less money and couldn't enforce economic policy at all, least not before Charlemagne, and even then it was still less regulated then Rome) The economies didn't even really shrink since they were always local in the first place, as a result the only change was taxation and rules. (which in the end was better for the peasant folk anyway, even the merchants had it pretty good during the Medieval Era most of the time) I wouldn't even really call the Fall a downturn economically, let alone anything beyond that. "I picked the example out of my arse, I have no reason to believe the trajectory was straight down though. Its going to be bumpy, some good decades, with a sudden Visigoth invasion undoing all that and some." Yeah it really doesn't apply, historically the Fall of Rome is a retroactive thing, barely anybody noticed it at the time and it wasn't until centuries later when kingdoms started doing things even more independently did anyone consider that they were no longer part of the empire. This is why the Pope and Charlemagne formed the Carolingian Empire. (called the first Holy Roman Empire after the Roman Empire, despite the fact Byzantium called itself the Roman Empire, which it was generally treated as for another century or so outside of the HRE) But no it didn't undo most economic progress because it was majorly local and they didn't actually raid most of the Empire, only its capital and part of Lombardy. (which they took as the Kings of Lombardy funny enough)
1
@benholroyd5221 First off nobody refers to boom and bust as just general periods of economic growth and decline, (that's fundamentally wrong because its so nonspecific it might as well describe nothing) when you are using those terms you are referring to a period of economic growth and reduction found mostly in the 1900s, its not centuries long, and generally doesn't apply to nations without a central bank. (or some other centralized economic authority, which in most cases before 1830 never really existed) It does not apply to a period of economic growth over a period of half centuries or longer and or collapse or reduction afterwards, (which isn't really how it worked anyway) in fact that rarely ever happened in a noticeable form, economies weren't nearly that volatile and they did not generally collapse or go into recession. (least how we think of it, plenty of locals in a economic region would starve from crop harm and livestock death or such, that's about the worst economic situation and it was always localized outside of a pandemic, there was no such thing as an economic collapse or bust period without the massive logistics we carried from the 1800s on) "What would you describe as an economic system in Roman times v today?" All economic systems are just a collaboration of smaller economic systems going down to the bottom, like feudal Lords reaching down onto the household of each individual. (generally the economic factors breakdown a good bit when you try to apply them directly to individuals, this is where psychology is required and it changes how we perceive the environment) The less logistically capable a society is the more limited this stays, so instead of getting a Mediterranean sized economy during the eras of Rome, you got town/city localized economies mostly (with very few cases of any higher integrated interactions) which practically completely ignorant of all other economies surrounding them. As logistic capability rises, so too does the ability to integrate small economic systems into a larger one, so far we recognize that an economic system can be as big as the EU, (most nations however keep it to nation, not pan-national or international) so we currently don't know the limits of current logistics, however what can be said is that there is one, I would suggest with current globalization we probably aren't capable of a hypothesized pan-planetary economy, so planets are the current logistical limit. That is to say if we could reach other planets. "My example still works. Londonium was one day part of the Roman empire, the Romans withdrew and Londonium experienced a contraction because of that. And is was quicker than the Fall of Rome." It really doesn't, the Romans living there did not withdrawal, for the most part they assimilated, by that point the Romans that weren't living there were already gone, the Fall of Rome itself did not effect London and for the most part they did not know about the Fall of Rome nor did they really care. And that aside most of London's economy was still local, even more so then most of the continent actually, being so independent they barely had regard for the Empire. In most ways the area the Empire covered was more projection then control. "When I said move slower I mean thing like spices and silk on the silk road might take years to reach us, and technological advances might take centuries." This is wrong, those trades aren't part of a local economy and are nowhere near as economically significant as nor to local economies. It also wasn't the a representative of economic strength nor as an aspect of the majority of economic systems. (or really most of them, it was a select group of people, usually already wealthy and powerful people, who were involved in that economic system at all) The silk road is comparable more to the stock market, which is a completely separate economic system and generally operates in a complete disregard to most other economic systems. (not all mind you but tanking most economies would barely see a dent in the silk road and tanking the silk road would see no effect in most economies, you need to tank very specific, practically monopoly sized, powers to have seen massive impact, same as the stock market today) Using the silk road as an example of an economy is honestly a faulty starting point, you need to understand the bottom of the economic connections and where they go up to, trade at the size of nations and larger did not represent an economy regarding the size of the trade routes. (trade at that size generally had minimal impact on local economies tbh, even now they don't make up even a large segment of the economy in most cases) "Today we can transport anything anywhere in a matter of weeks, money and communication travel at the speed of light." However we don't have pan-national economies outside the EU, and no global economy because of logistic difficulty dealing with national interests. Trade may contribute a large part to more localized economic functions, it does not in itself represent an aspect of the economy, instead its at best an attachment to it. (excepting the cases where some aspect of an economy becomes reliant on that trade, but that's industry specific, not economy wide, so its debatable if that's really the case) "In 70 years we've gone from room sized computers, to networked super computers in our pocket, able to instantly access the worlds knowledge. Able to instantly communicate our ideas to the world. This message could potentially be read by billions of people! 50 years ago that was something only world leaders could expect, 100 years ago no one could." This is kinda pointless to point out, the basics of economics and logistics don't change from this, especially when a computer is still incapable of things like reading and understanding general law. (which it can't do on its own thus one of the reasons nations are localized economies still) When you intentionally limit economic integration, you're gonna keep the economies disjointed and disconnected, our economies haven't grown into each other still, (in a sense we've been logistically sitting at the Victorian Era for a while now because we're still partly running on Victorian political economics) they're probably not gonna change for a while. (least without a one world government or dissolution of nations, which btw I oppose) "Re 1929 and 1921 crashes. In 29 private parties attempted to step in, it didn't work. Whitney with some bankers attempted it, and the Rockefeller's also tried stepping in. The government had to step in because of the size. The 29 crash led to the Glass steagall act. Note how there weren't any of these massive banking crashes until after Glass Steagall was neutered. The regulation worked!" So the government just took over the failure of the banks and failed for another 12 years. You do realize that proves my point right? The banks failed to fix the economy for 4 years, then the government decided to step in and ended up failing for 12. They kept the economy broken until 1945 when it finally recovered. Compare to 1921 where it recovered in from the same problems in 18 months with practically no government intervention. Given how often government intervention in the economy doesn't work because politicians and bureaucrats don't understand basic economics, (especially when politics operates in the exact opposite manner of economics) it makes me even question why anyone would think giving economic control to a government would make any sense, they don't have obligations to the economy, they barely suffer if it goes bad. (if they even suffer that is)
1
I agree with the conception that race doesn't really exist in a sense, though I disagree that there aren't clear lines of ethnicity to a certain respect. Obviously there is no case of pure ethnicity, all men are spawned from the same man and woman, there is no separation between men of different societies in the sense of being differently human, however the genetics of different non-pure ethnicities do come into play in some cases, most especially in the medical field and to a certain respect sociological and perhaps even possibly the psychological field. Human genetics does, to a certain extent, determine individuals to such a degree that it does effect social and psychological interactions and health consequences, to what degree is that true we don't know and probably never will, but this is the classic nurture vs. nature debate. Like for example, African-origin folks (who are usually black, but granted such genetics may not be reflected in skin tone) do have genetic advantages in building better muscle and being more physically capable while having some intelligent disadvantages compared to some of the other non-African ethnicities. I would probably argue the layman shouldn't bother to recognize this most of the time because of the division issue, people try to find issues to divide themselves on naturally, its human nature, but at least recognizing some genetics do have strict or clear advantages over others in specific tasks that are reflected on a general scale that appears in correlation with things like physical appearance is not something delusion or socially constructed. While conceptions of race that we have now are beyond any truth for they were devised principally as the best known genetic indicator in the late 1800s and early 1900s when nobody had any knowledge or education, it is best to be cautious with such things as this else the same problem will repeat itself again and stick around for generations.
1
Any knowledgeable Christian would admonish you for wasting effort before helping yourself, you can't help others until you can foremost help yourself. Attributing it to self-hatred is silly, the socialists were chasing a God shaped hole claiming to be moral they became slaves to evil.
1
@tomrhodes1629 Gnosticism is a form of Satanic religiosity, (often claiming to be above religion because it most appeals to prideful "intellectuals" and academics) spawned from Dualism. All Dualist philosophies are integrally linked with demon worship still.
1
@JoaoVitor-wp9zg The appeal to tradition is a fallacy, God is not fallacious and does not agree with fallacy. What does the Scriptures say? Or are they not the Word of God? Well in that case you cannot believe in Jesus because He said that all of the Scriptures are God breathed as His Disciples also said, in which you'd make Him a liar and thus not God, for God cannot lie. So is John the Baptist a Gnostic? How about James? How about Paul? What about John the Apostle? Or what about Isaiah and Daniel? Was Moses? Tell me, what is a Gnostic then? And how is Augustine and Origen then not a Gnostic according to your claims? Have you not read Colossians? What about Romans? What about 1 and 2 Corinthians? What about 1 John or 1 Timothy? The practices of the Catholic Church are addressed directly by Paul and John constantly and so does Acts, yet to ignore when it forbids asceticism and monastery behavior, we are not to become monks and we are called to partake in marriage for our own sakes, and any religion which forbids this to be considered holy is blaspheming God and refuses the Scriptures. Read Colossians 2:18-19 again. He who worships saints and angels so till will be disqualified for refusing God. If you cannot trust the Scriptures before any church, you cannot receive the Scriptures. For when a church describes foremost what God says, it is not by the Holy Spirit and is instead by man's wisdom, and you are thus deceived. For God brought us faith by the Holy Spirit and He gave us wisdom by the Holy Spirit, but those who trust in men to give it to them, they do not receive the Holy Spirit. Peter was but a man, no more distinct to the truth that God gave Him then even a Gentile, for even he called himself another man like a Gentile and nothing more. But all who live in pride and arrogance, who make themselves an authority, they are condemned by God. No man is an authority over God, there is no intercession between God and man that is not Himself God, only Jesus as the Christ, there is no other. One who calls themselves Alter Christus themselves cannot be in Christ, for there is no other to Christ, man cannot be Christ and Christ does not share His glory with man and neither shall you represent man to Christ nor Christ to man, it is Christ or Chaos.
1
Haven't been watching you too much lately, and while I definitely have some disagreements to make on tangential topics we could definitely discuss, I most certainly wouldn't disagree with your perspective regarding history even before knowing of it, how someone can believe that they know the objective reality without the objective reality being fully and plainly presented is beyond me, that should be basic logic that obviously we are limited, and thus subjective, to the history we have even in the best degree of information we have. And while we do try to reach as close to the objective truth as possible, yes it is impossible, like with science, for history to reach a finalized conclusion that we know as objective truth. How anyone can make the claim that we have objective truth from scatterings of subjective perspectives is just a foolish expectation.
1
@ZontarDow Its easy to lie, that's different from being able to twist, those who reject the Christian standard aren't Christians regardless of their claim, and it is simply provable with exegetical analysis.
1