Comments by "" (@Cloud_Seeker) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @fun_ghoul  ""Capitalism" isn't some random smear, brainlet." - I never said it was, and insult isn't something you should throw around when it is YOU that do not understand. When someone is trying to smear capitalism, they will throw anything they can at it. To a socialist, Capitalism is a smear. They smear it because it is against what they believe. So they will call it nazi, corrupt, dog eat dog and whatever else. So please. Do not call people "brainlet" when it is you that can not understand why socialists think it is one. Truth doesn't matter in conversations that deals with lies and propaganda.
    1
  2.  @fun_ghoul  Learn to read. Learn how politics work.
    1
  3.  @rappakalja5295  The problem with that argument is that it is an oxymoron. You can't have a privatized corporation where the state has total control over the management. If the state controls the management they control the firm. If they control the firm is it by definition not private anymore since the private owner does not have control over his firm. Therefore you can not have state control over private corporation. China is not capitalistic just because the owners do not really own their own businesses. They are communists and the state own their businesses. To use China as an example of why Nazism is capitalistic is a really bad example because China are not capitalists. Also. Nazi Germany were not "privitized". If you read the Vampire Economy you can clearly see that the business owners were "local leaders" of their factory, but not owners of the factory. The author (as a communist) think it is still capitalism, but the fact is the owner has been robbed of his ownership. Which means it is no longer a private corporation and is owned by the state. Just because Hitler didn't have total control does not mean it was mixed or capitalist. Your definition of mixed economy is also wrong. You did not describe a mixed economy as I said before.
    1
  4. Dude. You have no idea what you are even talking about. Are you saying the people in Scotland was the same people Germany and Norway? So the Vikings where all Germanic tribes until Christianity came? What a bunch of nonsense. No. They were not their own people. The Germanic peoples is a broad categorization for ancient and early medieval Germanic-speaking people. They never considered themselves a group of people that all belong to the same group. They fought plenty of wars between themselves.
    1
  5. How can they refute anything when they can't get past the introduction. I have the same problem that wants to argue about a subject, but when you go into it they complain about you making an essay when it is not even half a A4 page.
    1
  6.  @GhostSamaritan  Just because the Nazis fought against other socialist groups does not prove that they are not socialists. This is a massive fallacy in your logical thinking. Socialists have no obligation or interest to have solidarity among each other. A Anarchist is not a Marxist. A Marxist is not a Syndicalist. It is in fact one of the major marks that they are socialists. Socialists of different types of Socialism ALWAYS fight each over over who gets to be in control. They want THEM to be in control. A Marxist do not want a Anarchist to gain power over the state. They will fight each other and they will murder each other if they have to do so. EDIT: LOL!!! You proved my point. HAHAHAHAA!!! "Stalinism is obviously not Socialism." Yeah Yeah Yeah. Ofc it isn't. They are obviously not socialists because they disagree with you. That is why it is okay to attack them and fight against them. YOU know what true Socialism is, and Stalinists are obviously not it. Even if they themselves will tell me the same exact things about YOU. Right there you have proved why Hitler was a socialist. He just said the same thing which allows you to dismiss Stalinism. It was actually one of the major concerns when it came to arming the French Resistance in WW2. A lot of the resistance groups were just different cells of socialists. What they did was not to use any weapons or materials to sabotage the Nazis. Doing that is dangerous, it might expose them as a whole and it often was of very little value. What they did instead was to arm themselves and used the weapons to fight OTHER resistance cells as those other cells were other forms of socialists. The Allied high command had VERY big concerns that arming the resistance to much will just lead to them hoarding weapons and power so they can lead a revolution after the war was won and take power.
    1
  7. I have had a chat with a "career government employee". He/she apparently thinks that money is not digital and is only created when the actual dollar bill or coin is created for it. No wonder governments are garbage at what they do.
    1
  8. @Ricky Moore The banks operates on fractional reserves. That means only a fraction of the money needs to be in reserve, and the banks can literally create the rest. If you deposit 1 dollar at a bank and the reserve requirement is 1%. The bank can then create 99 dollars of IUO's to lenders as they are only required to have that 1 dollar in reserve.
    1
  9. @Ricky Moore No it is still there. They just set the requirement to 0% to allow the banks to print as much money as they want. They still create money in the same exact way.
    1
  10. @Ricky Moore You have no idea how old I am. Just so you know. I also do not care if you read anything because you are not going to prove it.
    1
  11.  @TheImperatorKnight  " Corporations are giant hierarchies consisting of thousands of people who collectively control their means of production (e.g. shareholders)." - Incorrect. I believe you are looking at a publicly traded mega corporation. A corporation is an organization that is producing something or providing a service with the aim of earning a profit. I work for a small corporation with 8 employees. There is ofc a hierarchy of who is the owners. But we work under the idea that everyone make their own calls and everyone is working together. I do not have to ask my boss for permission to call any of the costumers I am working with. I sometimes even have a much better understanding of the job then my boss does and is therefore the one being the authority in the meeting on our side. Even if I am just a regular employee. Your definition does not suit most corporations. It also ignores all massive organizations that are not publicly traded. You can't have shareholders if you do not trade in shares TIK.
    1
  12.  @TheImperatorKnight  Those 8 are people that work for the corporation. It is called a small corporation and small corporations make up the bulk of corporations within a society. Different countries have different thresholds for what counts as a small, medium and large corporation. But the legal status is a corporation. The tax authories will not buy any argument that say this orginization I work for isn't a corporation. "They're clearly a group of people organized into a hierarchy (a society)." - Not really. Here is the problem you have. You have an america mind. You only think of what an American corporation is like. I can form my own corporation with an employee of one. I can use this corporation to for example rent out flats and houses. Stop this private vs public nonsense. We are not talking about that. We are talking about the FACT you are using legal definitions of things we have RIGHT NOW are definied in the law: Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corporation.asp 1: A corporation is a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that individuals possess. 2: An important element of a corporation is limited liability, which means that shareholders may take part in the profits through dividends and stock appreciation but are not personally liable for the company's debts. 3: Corporations are not always for profit. Your definitions of that a corporation is made up of thousands of people, have a hierarchy structure and have shareholders is not actually the definition of a corporation. A corporation is a is a legal entity and not whatever you said TIK.
    1
  13. Many reasons. Most of them just do not understand the ideology they support.
    1
  14. Why do you think that source isn't biased? Three Arrows is part of something called Breadtube. A community filled with socialists and communists. It is rather obvious that they are not going to accept the idea Hitler was a socialist as that will be agreeing that their ideology make room for his ideology.
    1
  15.  trainbomb  How exactly do you know I don't speak German again? Where do I live? Who are my parents? What languages do I speak? What kind of work do I have? Exactly how much do you know about me and how did you attain this information?
    1
  16.  trainbomb  You are not answering the question. How do you know anything about me. I am just going to play dumb until you answer the question. That is irrelevant. Do you know that the Germans were famous for their excellent record keeping right? The reason the Luftwaffe was not a as heavily punished in the Nuremberg trials was because their HQ was bombed and most evidence was destoryed. You seem to forget that we have the German records provided by the Nazi administration themselves. We are not dealing with hearsay accounts from cold war propaganda. You can read the documments yourself in German. It is also not impossible for non-germans to learn german You are treating this like you are dealing with the Quran or something. Stop being stupid.
    1
  17.  @sethd2119  Then why do you not declare the bias openly and present Three arrows as if he doesn't have a horse in this race? Should you ask a Nazi if they are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity and expect an honest answer? Ofc they will lie deny it because they have a horse in the race. You can not expect a open Socialist to be honest with their definitions.
    1
  18.  @sethd2119  I have not stated anything about TIK, nore have I used him as a source. You are different as you have linked someone else as a source in an attempt to refute.
    1
  19. TIK. You are wrong about one thing in your public vs private video however. You defined what a corporation was in a very strange way. Now I am no legal expert in corporate classification. But I know for 100% that a corporation does not need to be trading stocks in order to be a corporation. A corporation is a organization with the aim to produce value where the finances are separate from the owners personal finances (apart from a few structures). To define corporations like you did goes against the literal legal book about what is and what isn't a corporation in my country. So sorry TIK, you are wrong there.
    1
  20.  Zurk  What is funny about it? It is true, he isn't.
    1
  21.  jeff jr  It depends on the libertarian. It also depend on who you compare to because people that are not libertarians are not by default smarter or know more.
    1
  22. Not really. Communism and Fascism are different branches of Socialism.
    1
  23.  @zyanego3170  No. You are putting the cart before horse and you contradict yourself. If Syndicalism is a branch of Socialism. Fascism is also a branch of Socialism. A branch of a branch still belong to the same tree. Communism is a different branch from Syndicalism, but they are all connected to the same trunk called Socialism. What I am doing is making fun over that OP basically said that Baptists and Christianity are two branches of Lutheranism. They are not. Both belong to Christianity, just like Communism and Fascism both belong to Socialism. They are two different branches, but from the same tree.
    1
  24. Yes. People really believe Nazis were not socialists. In fact, they often claim they are capitalists. However you are wrong on a few things. No Socialism does not need to be imperial. They often become imperial because "socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money". They have to make other people join the "socialistic cause" because only then do they get the resources they need and want.
    1
  25. Yes. It matters when words are manipulated for political reasons. If we look at the word inflation itself. It has been manipulated for political reasons. Inflation in "modern" usage means increase in prices. However this is incorrect. It is as correct as saying a bacterial infection is fever. Both are symptoms and not the cause. Inflation is when money is printed making the currency more and more worthless. The increase in prices are caused by the fact you are trying to pay for something that become more and more worthless while still receiving the same product or service that become worth more and more money. A bacterial infection do not cause fever. A fever is the body trying to fight the bacteria. If you tell people that National Socialism was socialistic, they will outright refuse to accept that as true. They will not accept it as they have manipulated the meaning of Socialism to be literally defined as Marxism. Therefor National Socialism can not be socialism as it doesn't follow the teachings of Karl Marx. It also means that they can make the claim that National Socialism belongs to the right wing and capitalism even if there is not a piece of evidence for it.
    1
  26. Saying his political views are mad is looking back at history with the benefit of hindsight. We know they were mad because we have had like +70 years to think about them and why they are wrong. Back then it wasn't that unusual. Antisemitism was something the Catholic Church taught daily to their followers. They just quietly removed that part of their doctrine after WW2 and act like they never once were guilty of anything.
    1
  27.  @Irondevil34  Antisemitism has been parcticed in the catholic church for generations on generations. To say it hasn't is factually false. Jews has been discriminated against and the church has played a large part in that all over Europe. You know, since it was the Jews that put Jesus on a cross. Back then Hitlers views wasn't actually that extreme. It isn't the first time a religious war has been started in Europe. You view his views from a modern perspective which is a post-ww2 perspective. Back then antisemitism and rascism was the norm compared to today. You are literally denying history now to paint Hitler as a madman as you simply refuse he was a man of his time.
    1
  28.  @Irondevil34  "Also in the 70+ Generation the church was not the that big player in opinion like in the 3rd century." - wow. This was a brain dead take. So in the past +1750 years the Catholic Church has not been a big player in opinion like they were between 200-300 AD. Dude. The catholic church was not even established until the 6th century. You are literally making shit up. You are literally skipping everything that has anything to do with European history at ths point. How can the catholic church be influential when it wasn't even an established church?
    1
  29. Okay. I define Socialism as when everything works, everything good in the world, and when something does not work or do not share my opinion it is far-right. Congratulation. You have just become evil and far-right no matter what your opinion is.
    1
  30.  mike mcmike  What the f are you talking about. A lot of people think that. Why do you think "far-right" always gets called Nazis? It is because people think Nazism was a far-right ideology which forces it to be Capitalistic.
    1
  31.  @estebangomez7955  That is a oxymoronic term. You can not have state capitalism as capitalism means it is privately owned. A state that is public by its very nature and can not privately own anything. Anything owned or controlled by the state is public, meaning it isn't capitalism. EDIT: Also nationalism is not fascism. They are not the same thing. The USSR can be nationalist while still being 100% communists. Nationalism is not the same as Fascism. Also. Fascism seeks the lucrative merger with corporations (syndicates) and the state. The corporations will not have ownership over their own corporation, but they are allowed to make their own decisions. The ownership will be the government and not the people that run the corporation. This is not "Capitalism". The owners are not the privately owned. It is also not fully controlled by the bosses or anyone else. The government has the final say in everything as they own the place. This is by definition ownership or control of the means of production. The literal definition of Socialism. You can not seek to expand capitalism by having the government taking over ownership. It is the LITERAL opposite of Capitalism. A state owned corporation is not a private organization. The fact you think nationalism is fascism or nazism, and do not know that "state capitalism" is a nonsense term only show you don't know the words used here.
    1
  32.  @estebangomez7955  "I did not say nationalism is fascism. " - You said: "Advancing nationalism is in direct opposition to socialism." - This is a nonsense statement. You are in this very statement implying facism is nationalism. There is absolutly no other way to interpert this statement unless it becomes nonsense. You can be a socialist and be nationalistic. "advancing nationalism" have aboslutly nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. At least if you know the definition of the term. If you replace nationalism with fascism however, you are making something that make sense in this context. "How can communism be nationalist, if the end goal is to wither away the state? Does that make any sense to you?" - First of all. That is never going to happen. Second of all. A nation is not inherntly tied to a government. A community can be a state even without a governmental orgnization. Nationalism means you value the nations (a community that hold a piece of territory) interest above that of other nations. You can still have nationalism without a governmental state. Just like you can set a your tribes needs that above of other tribes needs. Or in other words. My people is more important then your people, and I will help my people first. That is nationalism. It does not exclude helping others, but it does take care of its own before others.
    1
  33.  @estebangomez7955  "Where did I even mention the word fascism in that statement? How does me saying socialism cannot be nationalist equal me saying fascism, is nationalism?" - Do you know you can say things without actually using the words? You do not have to spell things out to say something. Do you know what the word imply means? Do you know the context of this video? Do you know that people say Nazism and fascism are right wing ideologies? Do you know that people say Nazism and Hitler was capitalists? Do you know that it is extremely common that people equate nationalism to fascism? I am not going to read anything you have to say before you first give a fast and simple reason why a socialist can not be a nationalist. I am not going to read through your nonsense and waste my time before you can actually explain yourself. As far as I see. You have no understanding of the words you speak. That can be seen as you do not seem to understand that "state capitalism" is a word invented by marxist and is oxymoronic. It only make sense in the mind of a marxist. And remember. Socialism is when the means of production is owned or controlled by the state. So please say exactly how socialism is mutually excluded from nationalism and can never be combined.
    1
  34. You do have some points, but remember that the UK provided more lend lease to the USSR then the USA before the Red Army had actually managed to turn the war around. The USA provided more lend lease when the Red Army where on the offensive, but not when they were being pushed back. Seeing how bad the UK had it, I don't think the USSR got that much from their lend lease. However. Hitler did have the better economical view. Without oil they were doomed on all fronts. That is also what happened.
    1
  35. Can you please give me a rundown why exactly the danger is again? You point out that the left has a tendency to murder a lot of people. How exactly is this observation incorrect and why is it a danger caused by "making people Hitler was a socialist"? Do we need to just invent someone on the right so the left doesn't seem so bad by comparison even if all evidence points to that Hitler belonged to the "left" side of the ideological divide? That sounds even worse to me. If you can draw that conclusion, maybe it is true. If we see that the earth is not flat, it is insanity to behave that the people that say its round is a danger to society. "FDR was a Socialist (Lefty)" - When exactly did FDR have a lot of death camps and forced labor camps? They had internment camps for Japanese people during the war, after Japan attacked them. Which is kind of logical even if it was the wrong thing to do. But they were not known for a lot of death, or looting of wealth. Also. FDR never used the term socialism in any speech. I never heard anyone seriously calling FDR a socialist. You need to prove that claim since it seems you have just made that one up. "Like it or not, your detailed analysis and your video title will be taken by these people as proof that people like Bernie Sanders and AOC are Hitler under another name. They will not understand the detail and the fact that socialist economics isn’t the same as death camps unless you put it clearly in the titles and this is not helpful" - So what will you do when they support and advocate for people to hunt down other people to steal or kill them because of what they were born as? You do realize that people like AOC are extremists. If given the chance, she will do exactly this because of what she believes in. You are only pointing out facts. Do you think Antifa are against fascists? No they are exactly what the fascists was back in the 20's and 30's. Have you ever considered that people like AOC might actually be dangerous in their rhetoric? You can't judge history with the knowledge of hindsight. The fascists said relevant things people at the time cared about. Just like the progressives and left wing does today. I hear nothing but demonization of people like cis white hetrosexual males. Even to the point the "its okay to be white" prank was brought up in many governments as hate speech that needed authoritarian laws to stop. "I know you’re a history channel but unfortunately many won’t see it that way" - And history show that the left wing ideology of collectivization only brings mass death. It is a problem the left wing has a hard time to reconcile. You do not serve history any favors by making things up in an attempt to hide the fact collectivists ideology bring more suffering, exploitation and death to people just because they do not want to accept their ideology does that. You don't say Galileo Galilei is a danger to society just because he breaks your political beliefs. It is wrong to do that.
    1
  36.  @whiteshadow8520  No. It is you that said it all. You do not quote someone unless you also show where the original is and who said it.
    1
  37.  @whiteshadow8520  For some reason your reply was removed. However, you said the original was on facebook. Which is a completely different media from Youtube. Which means you have failed to provide any context at all. You can not reply on something completely unrelated and expect anyone to know what you are talking about. That in turn means any claim is a claim made by you. You said everything and you didn't quote anything. Don't be daft.
    1
  38. Truth is the first casualty of war. There is most likely never an account that is completely honest.
    1
  39. People act like this because they are socialists and make a huge point about hating on everyone they see as a Nazi. It is to embarrassing for them to admit his politics are socialistic.
    1
  40. So why did he say things that are not true? Why does he paint the soviet soldier as some kind of super soldier? Why does he lie about how many bodies where around? Why is his name one of the most common German names? Why did only only ever heard about this once the Soviets published the diary? It is much more likely that it is fabricated. There is no way the soviet soldiers were super soldiers. It is likely that a soviet politician should paint them as that after the battle however.
    1
  41.  @czechpatriot2230  If someone gives you James Smith it also means they pick that name just because it is common. Which means you should have a hard time actually finding who it is. You know. Anonymity among the crowds. Please do not tell me you don't understand this. Do you really think the Soviet Union wants people to actually verify if their propaganda is true or not. The problem is that the guy has NEVER been verified to actually exist. How can you take an account from the soviets about their enemy seriously when there is no records of the guy even existing? Are we just going to take the Soviets word on that this German is actually a real person? The regime that constantly lied and was known for fabricating just about anything?
    1
  42.  mike mcmike  Very interesting arguments you got. Instead of providing sources and explaining why someone is wrong, you just call them a idiot and then try to brag about how educated you yourself are. Interesting strategy. Let me know how that will work out for you.
    1
  43.  mike mcmike  I very much doubt you did. I got a degree in theoretical physics. I don't have to show it to you, but I got it anyway. If you actually was what you claimed you are, you should know just how poorly you present yourself and your argument. Everyone know that Galileo Galilei proved the heliocentric model was true by calling everyone idiots and throwing poop at random people on the street. You can say whatever you want TIK is doing is wrong. But since you are not actually giving any sources it is irrelevant what you have to say. Just calling people idiots just make people think you are a sad little boy that can't do anything else. It also just prove how bad your counterargument is. If you are correct, you don't need to call people idiots.
    1
  44.  mike mcmike  When you have nothing else to say, insult them. That is the clear sign you lost. Since that was your opening statement, you lost before you even started.
    1
  45.  @mistertuberculosis6191  Oh I am not wasting my time at all. I guess my last reply got censored by Youtube. I am just trolling him because he is so sad an pathetic it just can not be helped. The fact he tries to pass himself up as a intellectual is just hilarious. The fact he doesn't even seem to understand I don't have a degree in physics is just funny.
    1
  46.  @AusSP  You are not good at understanding jokes are you?
    1
  47. He wants to do other videos than Stalingrad.
    1
  48.  stuie999  Just shows that teachers have no idea what they are talking about.
    1
  49. I said the same thing. If you have an association who is in charge of protecting everyone as long as they are paid, that will just become taxes. They need a area that they control, so they can show up when needed. AKA territory. They need to control who is inside the territory. AKA citizenship. They need constant funding even if their services are not required. AKA Taxes They need to control what you are allowed to do and not allowed to do as they can't protect people that do wrongs just because they paid money. AKA Laws and regulations. Since there is no unclaimed land on earth. You either pay them for their services if you wish to stay, you can leave or be punished. AKA taxes. There is no such thing as a fully voluntary state/association as there simply is nowhere else to go if you wish to not take part. Also often the demands made are reasonable. You can't expect the people you pay to protect you to show up to help you on the other side of the world.
    1
  50.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Don't bother with this guy. He is not all right up there.
    1