Відео

Herbert Marcué's "One Dimensional Man" recognises the vulnerability of the spoilt children of the post war economic boom in America as fertile ground for sowing discontent among the young "college" classes. Marcusé also identified the "ghetto" classes as a fertile source if discontent because they were migrants who were unable to draw upon extended family or mainstream societal morés to succeed in life. Marcusé's book (1965) predicted, and one might say instigated/justified every socialist revolutionary group from 1965 to the present day Woke support for BLM, Transhumanism, and Utopianism generally. I harbour concerns that Marcusé's ideas have gained traction because of what clinical osychologist Calhoun idebrified in his Unicerse 25 "mouse Utopia" experiments of the early 1970s. The dissaffected yourh, plummeting birth rate, increase in violence and narcissism, and general loss of societal self regulation being a consequence of a lack of existential pressure on society in rhe West.

As always a great, informative, and entertaining. I wish you done Ho or Castro rather than Pol. They each had a bigger impact. Otherwise, thanks.

The pattern is: They hated God.

I haven't bought into the "Total Christcuck Death" position. But there is a very strong case that many socialists have a reframed and reinterpreted version of Christian doctrine that makes up much of their worldview.

Marx was the sort of guy who declared he loved Mankind, but hated people... 😮

Seems like shoehorning Lenin into Ayn Rand.

57:07 Let us not forget that in our day and age there are still people to be found, who proudly exhibit portraits of Marx and Mao like the 20th century didn't happen, at all. It's all an illusion... of the demiurge!!! But seriously, people should be just as concerned about idols of Marx and Mao as they are about idols of Hitler. Who rejects to accept that celebrating these murderers is totally unacceptable, should be seen as a subversive, insidious traitor to his/her fellow citizens and shall never be underestimated as a benign person and must under no circumstances be given responsibility in any way, for example a judge who worships these abominations cannot remain a judge as he openly worships characters opposed to law and order of any kind.

Did the period of the infamous european dictatorships coincide with a relatively major loss of faith?

The thing the left in America have failed to comprehend is the difference between the theory of socialism and the reality of it.

43:13 Nietzsche would have HATED these Socialist scum.

I obviously don't understand what "capitalism" is. To me it is the ability to claim exclusive access to a resource, and to trade that resource with others in return for their resources to your own advantage. Capitalism will always exist where there is the rule of a common law enforced by mutual self interest. To deny private property, to deny the ability of someone to profit, as they see fit, for their own advancement, is the definition of slavery. Socialism is slavery, and capitalism is simply voluntary cooperation and mutual respect.

The terminology is even corrupted. Capital referes to stored resources, both the Communist and West, (who are more socialist that the communist, they actually manage to provide for the people), control and use capital. In communism only the state has capital, while freedom to property provides access to capital in Western democracies.

I think you might be brain-damaged. You need help. Doesn't take a genius to realize that none of them were lazy or lacked independence. That's without mentioning your insane ranting about the platonicien essence of Marxism. Here's a tip : dialectical materialism finds its origins in Heraclitus pre-Socratic dialectics and in Aristotle's materialism. Which means there's nothing in common between Plato's and Marx's philosophy. I don't think you're quite able to understand that. You need to see a psychiatrist beforehand so that you stop to see Jesuitic gnostic conspiracies everywhere. Wishing you to get better, ciao.

5:48 O M G YES SO MUCH YES!!!

It seems Louise has had a bad run in with fundamentalists that have led him to conclude self interest cannot involve alturism. What sort of society do you want to live in? One comprised purely of self interest (ANCAP)? Or one where people are prepared to help people when given the chance to, tempered by the need for self care (Liberal)?

At 6:01 you talk about a "problematic upbringing" and you write "poor upbringing" on the screen. By poor do you only mean problematic, or also poor from an economic perspective? Because I would say the latter doesn't necessarily lead to socialism, in fact it is often the opposite if I'm not mistaken.

I dont think Stalin suffered low esteem. Historians are doing mistake trying to find something human in Stalin. There was none. You can find something humanly even about Hitler, his love for dogs like example, but you wont find anything about Stalin. He was narcistic psychopat of worst kind. Intelligent and ruthless.

Stupid atheistic propaganda. The Jesuit order is at the roots.

Tik history I agree with you but can this also apply to right wing dictatorship for example I don’t like how you added Hitler because Hitler wasn’t a communist he was a fascist just because it says nationalist socialism doesn’t mean it was that’s like saying North Korea is a democracy because it says the democratic republic of North Korea now if you look at all the right right wing dictatorship leaders Hitler Mussolini and hideki Tojo they all had missed up upbringings and I’m not saying this because I’m conservative of left wing I’m just a moderate 1:10:5 1:10:53

Tik history I agree with you but can this also apply to right wing dictatorship for example I don’t like how you added Hitler because Hitler wasn’t a communist he was a fascist just because it says nationalist socialism doesn’t mean it was that’s like saying North Korea is a democracy because it says the democratic republic of North Korea now if you look at all the right right wing dictatorship leaders Hitler Mussolini and hideki Tojo they all had missed up upbringings and I’m not saying this because I’m conservative of left wing I’m just a moderate 1:10:5 1:10:53

Tik history I agree with you but can this also apply to right wing dictatorship for example I don’t like how you added Hitler because Hitler wasn’t a communist he was a fascist just because it says nationalist socialism doesn’t mean it was that’s like saying North Korea is a democracy because it says the democratic republic of North Korea now if you look at all the right right wing dictatorship leaders Hitler Mussolini and hideki Tojo they all had missed up upbringings and I’m not saying this because I’m conservative of left wing I’m just a moderate 1:10:5

Tik history I agree with you but can this also apply to right wing dictatorship for example I don’t like how you added Hitler because Hitler wasn’t a communist he was a fascist just because it says nationalist socialism doesn’t mean it was that’s like saying North Korea is a democracy because it says the democratic republic of North Korea now if you look at all the right right wing dictatorship leaders Hitler Mussolini and hideki Tojo they all had missed up upbringings and I’m not saying this because I’m conservative of left wing I’m just a moderate

Oh no, I have a good relationship with my mother. Am I at risk of becoming a socialist?

Great analysis. But now I have a serious question. How did it happen that all these lazzy hags came to power? I mean it can not be by pure coincidence because else we would have also competent people of the opposite upbringing in power. But we did not. Is there some ingredience that makes these people fall upwards?

@TIKhistory Great analysis, as always, thank you. I have a few questions. Would you say that Francisco Franco fits the same patterns that you have outlined in the video? What about Japanese leaders during WWII and Kim Il Sung? What about leaders who weren't necessarily fascist or socialist, such as Reza Shah Pahlavi, FDR, or Willy Brandt? What about modern leaders such as Putin, and Xi Jinping? To what extent do these leaders compare and contrast with the socialists you have already covered? What about the upbringing of certain aristocrats or even gentry? On the one hand, you might have landed individuals who never do any real work either no produce anything new of value other than having their estates managed for them and living off the proceeds. They too might have been brought up within a Lutheran or Protestant tradition, but what prevents them from becoming revolutionaries, do you think? Why were Churchill and Tony Benn so diametrically opposed in their ideologies, for instance, despite the fact that both came from an aristocratic background, although Churchill's family was obviously established for far longer than Benn's? Despite their upbringing and personalities, did any of the socialists you mention, primarily Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, and Engels, say anything of real worth in their works? For instance, does their claims about the exploitation of the proletariat ring true, when considered in the light of modern megacorporations such as Amazon and Apple, where workers don't necessarily have great rights in the work place, are often discouraged from unionising or even simpler things like taking regular breaks during work for food and ablutions, or other acts of relief? What justifies a few corporations and individuals to accumulate vast amounts of unchecked wealth and thus power, at the expense of their workers, and sometimes the consumer or even the environment? How is this democratic, beyond the notion that anyone may become said individual? I have noted that in some other videos you rightly advocate for hard work, saving up capital, and entrepreneurism. But what about when the odds are stacked against the majority of small business owners who are not looking to startup the next silicon valley company, but simply want to provide a service or product locally or even regionally, where competition is unfair and massively favours corporations, with small to medium sized business being taxed out of growth and a fair share of the market in correlation to their operations and quality of services/products, but can't really compete because of the predatory nature of some major corporations and their lack of fair tax payments to the taxman? This is not to say that entrepreneurism is for everyone, obviously, as some might want to enter careers in the very same corporations that might hinder their personal success if they were to start their own business. It's not even to say that major corporations are to be denigrated, reviled, regulated to the teeth, or stripped of their assets, as lives have been made better because of the innovation, services, and products of some corporations (although, arguably, the iPhone owes more to the US military than it does to the free market for its innovations, as George Friedman points out, and the same with Amazon, being the giant internet company that it is), but surely there ought to be a fairer playing ground for all businesses, if the masses are to be convinced that capitalism is the superior and more viable economic system? That can't be achieved if we backslide into monopolies and corporate rule of a 100 years ago, where the little guy or average Joe can't get a fair shake in the business world, can it? Has the Great General Strike of 1926 taught us nothing? Even for those who might just want to have a peaceful, dignified life, where they work hard and earn their living, how can the actions of corporations, and the biggest corporation of all, the government, that adversely impact their finances, be justified? What about the fact that financial education is rarely taught in state schools, despite the fact that as adults we are free to pursue our own education, but may lack certain foundations to do so? The same goes for other subjects, such as philosophy, as you mentioned. How can all of this be remedied? Surely, for the sake of the Lloyd Georgian concept of National Efficiency, the government ought to intervene and provide services that ensure the proper education and upbringing of children, where the parent might fail due to neglect, abject poverty, lack of skills and education themselves, or even inability to do so due to having to work more than they ought to simply to make ends meet? Please correct any misconceptions I may have, in addition to answering my questions. I would appreciate your input. Thank you.

So the only reason for so much suffering worldwide throughout the ages is due to the leaderships' daddy issues.

Fascinating. Part of normal developement for a male child is the detachment from his mother and an identification with his father. When this is disrupted, for example, by an abusive or distant father and an overbearing, smothering mother, it can have devastating consequences. It's interesting that in each of these examples the budding socialists rejected the traditionally masculine role of provider and protector (even vis a vis themselves), seeking instead to emulate the traditionally feminine role of being cared for and protected - but without the nurturing qualities usually associated with femininity. Not explicitly stated but evident from this presentation is that each of these examples display a profound narcissism.

This is not reflective of the current historical academic consensus on any of these figures. It is a public disservice to spread thinly grounded knowledge like this to so many people. Many of the titles in the bibliography are not academic articles or books, but pop history books which occasionally state their bias in the title. The inclusion of Ayn Rand as a citation, her "Why Do Some People Reject Capitalism" IIRCA, is also concerning.

Trotsky's father actually sounds like a great dad: he made a good living despite his poor background, he paid good money to make sure his children weren't uneducated and illiterate like he was, he tried to help his son get a real job as an engineer, he was alarmed when his son started to become a socialist, and kept financially supporting his ungrateful little shit of a son even after Trotsky made it very clear he hated the guy.

Excellent video.

Looking forward to watching your video on bashing Marx

2:26 it wouldn't be virtuous. it would be neutral

I'm not Lutheran, but I know many. I think your definition of altruism is a little harsh, Tik. Putting others before yourself is not a bad thing. The world needs a few more people who do that. Anyways, love your videos. If I agreed with you 100% you wouldn't be half as interesting. Please keep up the great work.

This is not reflective of the current historical academic consensus on any of these figures. It is a public disservice to spread thinly grounded knowledge like this.

Oh please do! I'd LOVE to hear your take on Marx in a dedicated video.

Our best asset, recognize and pick up on patterns

I am concerned alturism is being blamed as an intrinsic fault in people. Family loyalty, and loyalty to friends and locals (social capital) is a great motivator for increasing wealth and security in a society at large. Furthermore, Jesus of Nazareth openly proclaimed his message was not to reinforce the family unit, but to appeal to the conscience of each individual is a much broader context. I have always seen the Christian ethos as laying out an eternal struggle within the human species. The example Jesus provides is a demonstration of the "supreme" sacrifice. In the old testament sacrifices were made with only the finest most valuable possesions. Jesus used his body to demonstrate the ultimate act of faith was to destroy his own body. BUT, is that an instruction? Or is it an illustration? By this I mean is the Christian message to do as I do, to ape me, or is it listen to my story and let it temper your behaviour? Anyone who thinks the message of Jesus is to copy him without fail is going to physically die, obviously. But if the message of Jesus is to illustrate how compromised we all are as a species and to forgive ourselves for our frailty and to accept that we will perform sins and virtues and to know the difference, that is a completely different kettle of fish. Alturism generally performs a positive societal role. Alturism does admittedly contain a latent power to usurp the tribal/family's reciprocating for mutual self interest by redirecting that sentiment with a less immediate and some would say 'higher' goal. But is that automatically bad? The nation state enables greater stability but can only sustain itself if it's people recognise and are willing to fight for it as an idea. The Christian ethic is to believe in the individual as the site of a competition between alturistic and purely self interested motivations. Much intellectual freedom was created by this push for individualism, this ability to make personal sacrifices for ideals beyond the family or group interest. The European Englightenment, secularism, science, and technological progress would not have found a platform but for the altruism of the friars and monks of the mediævil monastery.

58:10 Huh evil Chinese guy couldn't be more right.... Rights over time will dwindle away as society becomes more complacent. Ex.. Mexico... And the treatment of farmers across Europe. And recently in Idaho..

Having lost faith in a good god, each resolved to become one.

On the Stalin part, some of the Russian biographers have stated that Stalin was the Georgian version of a Mafia family Boss, hence the nickname Koba (Georgia's Robin Hood) his exploits were well documented as a gangster, but instead of him being a gangster the marxist historians have turned him into some revolutionary figure instead of what he was the Lucky Luciano of Russia, the Boss of all bosses. This is why Stalin NEVER let the NKVD/KGB crack down on the night businesses of the Vory/Bratva (Russian Mafia) during his reign. If he had to crack down on one of them it is well documented that after Stalin took power, a central element of his brutal rule was the network of Gulag labor camps. Stalin turned to the professional brotherhood of criminals, called vory, to be the foremen and guards who kept them in line. Stalin lived in lavish apartments and lived like a Mafia boss but his rise to power came from a fear of his circle of friends and allies not just in the Kremlin but on the streets. Stalin controlled the, party, the communist political world and the underworld at the same time. For a 5 foot 2 inch tall man with 1 good arm and a slight limp he was feared like no other (no one should have feared Stalin in a fight he was a TINY disabled man) yet the entire class of intellectuals in the Bolshevik party feared him enough to never really cross him! The communists were so intertwined with Russian politics and the system that after the fall of the USSR it was the VORY that became the oligarchs of Russia and took over Russia in the 1990s. Stalin's fingerprints are still ALL over Russia to this day!

I'm surprised you also didn't include Saddam Hussein. He had quite the troubled childhood which may have contributed to his fascination with Ba'athism (basically National Socialism but with an Arab twist).

The description of Trotsky also describes a lot of bitter Rich people and ex-rich people who also bitch about systemic things. ( Without being Communists. ) A lot of people have "issues." This hardly guarantees someones precise views.

How the hell did anyone take Marx seriously?!

I'll grant you this breakdown explains modern Woke Neo-Leftoids perfectly, but it hardly explains all takers who might have an issue with their lot.

*Let me guess, roast me if I'm wrong:* Born into enormous wealth, never worked a day in their lives, got by by being hall-of-fame level mooches/leeches.

I've worked several dozen jobs as a result of bad parenting. This doesn't make my views equivilent to Lenin. This psycho-an is very risky, and might do the opposite.

You need to do a profile of Bernie Sanders.

so these guys they all had problems cleaning up their metaphorical rooms but wanted (and succeeded) to change the world.

This does explain why socialist men are so pro-abortion. They know that a father who tried - and failed - to get his child aborted has failed as a father and that the mother of that kid will never let that man be seen as a legitimate father. This usually leads to divorces and children with no father figures. Seems that socialists like that sort of broken family structure since it creates more socialists.

Just ended the video, and what a insight in my life it gave, you just avoided a bloody dictator XD. Sure i have criticisms like hitlers "lost of faith" and other things that may not be accurate, but a good video overall.