A concerning pattern in ALL Socialist childhoods
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 чер 2024
- There is a concerning pattern in all Socialist childhoods, as evidenced in the childhoods of Lenin, Trotsky, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot. A belief in altruism and poor parental relationships led to a self-hatred and a fear of independence which manifested as a hatred of the reality (what they called the "capitalist system").
NOTE: I said in the video that Lenin was a Lutheran and I should explain this. His mother was Lutheran, but he was baptised in the Russian Orthodox Church. So Lutheranism was an influence, since he loved his "saint"-like mother.
Timestamps:
00:00:21 Vladimir Lenin and concept outline
00:07:53 Leon Trotsky
00:16:40 Karl Marx
00:32:22 Friedrich Engels
00:36:47 Joseph Stalin
00:42:00 Benito Mussolini
00:45:53 Adolf Hitler
00:56:48 Mao Zedong
01:00:59 Pol Pot
01:03:57 Final Analysis
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
Follow me on Instagram / tikhistory
The thumbnail for this video was created by / tessdailyttv
⏲️ Videos on Mondays at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
This video's bibliography docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Full list of all my sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from UA-cam ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
Most of the evils in this world stem from poor parenting.
Hurt people hurts people
No. Sociologists do nonsense like:
Hey! Group with X has 4% criminals compared to 2% criminals in the general population. Clearly crime comes from X.
Well clearly well above 90% of all human beings never become criminals, wether X happens to them or not.
Some people are different. It cannot and will not tell you wether it is deliberate choice or genetics or whatever, but it is not circumstance. Even responding to certain circumstances (like a violent upbringing) makes you different from most people. We like to pretend criminals are just like us, and maybe that would make thing easier in some regards, but they are not. "Evil" is just a strategy some people use to persue their goals, and it's mostly not learned.
I can add 5000 lines of nuance to that and explain why people might honestly thing otherwise but it won't change the end result. Some people are just different. Which is a handy justification for genocide and capital punishment, thus we shy away from it. But how it has been used in the past does not make it less true.
One of my favorite House MD episodes "all parents screw up all children". Some do in such small ways the kids are able to get through life well enough, others are really destructive, a long and complicated scale.
Then the worst times are ahead of us.
The more I look around, the more I just see a lot of broken people breaking other people. I glad to see by yours and Huang's comment I'm not the only one. Our desire to bend over backwards to "rehabilitate" criminals and give them repeated chances comes at the cost of enabling them to create exponentially more victims, many of which go on to become likewise perpetrators.
“Socialism has a record of failure so blatant
... that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
―
Thomas Sowell, Economist
What do you mean by socialism? Socialism is basically just resistance to the global Anglo empire… now Moscow has a better living standard than London
@@701delbronx8 Yeah, Moscow is a poster of Russia. Look what other Russian cities are like.
@@701delbronx8 socialism does not mean anti anglo or anti anglo imperialism have you even read a book before?!
@@701delbronx8No... just no.
@@701delbronx8 Moscow or Russia aren't even socialist anymore and are doing good because they abandoned it lmao
I am from a broken family and it is true, we need a good family system. A broken family leads to broken children and destroys societies in the long run.
There's an interesting nuance in that Hitler and Stalin, although avoiding employment in the mainstream economy, were not completely opposed to effort. Hitler served dutifully in the army, and worked tirelessly as a political campaign leader until obtaining power. Stalin was a very hard worker as party general secretary and dictator.
I had visions of them getting on famously, watching westerns together and plotting the demise of the russian people...
Say what you will about Stalin and Hitler,
But you can’t accuse them of being lazy.
Unfortunately lol xD
Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were, by any definition, extremely active workaholics to the point of damaging their own health. They had virtually no private lives and lived for their work. It just happened to be politics or academic study. This video's thesis is pretty stupid.
stalin was a bank robber.
*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.
You forgot sponges.
Mostly born into some middle class wealth, maybe upper, or watched Dad climb out of lower class and perhaps some helped with Dad's family business or farm.
TIK sees Altruism. I'm not 100% familiar with Ayn Rand's definition of altruism, but she means a dark version of that, and towards extremes or elusive perfection.
(Another disagreement that I have is that almost everyone in those days grew up in a religious household. I think even the peasants, but that was probably different for the literate middle class. Yet not everyone became a hate-filled frustrated altruistic socialist. I also think hard fathers were the norm in those days. Life was much harder for everyone.)
Perfectionism, a neurotic obsession, coupled with the inability of Self to achieve final perfection (because that doesn't exist), coupled with resentment of others who fail to meet one's demands for perfection, is fertile soil for self hatred and hatred of everybody else. "I am brilliant and everyone else is stupid and evil. Or is it the opposite, I am stupid and evil but everybody else can function okay. Well f__k them all. F__k me too."
(I just thought of Kurt Cobain hating himself for the alleged reason that the rock music he invented wasn't _absolutely_ original and non-derivative.)
I see resentment about "injustice", projected onto others, a ridiculous sense of entitlement, unearned, and an egotistic desire to be king of the world.
Another Objectivist channel, focusing more lately on Israel, describes Palestinians and Hamas as altruistic. How?
A LITTLE BACKGROUND:
This Is despite the fact that the entire philosophy of Hamas, rooted in the words of Muhammad about killing Jews and stealing from the Jewish religion, to declare himself the final and most superior prophet, with a direct connection to God, and a life of stealing from caravans and extorting other kings and leaders, Hamas is all about destruction of Israel yet NOT one word in their 1988 Manifesto about creating a state called Palestine. (The Palestinian movement, its "father" Al-Husseini, a top Intelligence officer appointed directly by Hitler, REJECTED that option of establishing an independent Arab state, since at least 1936.)
So what does that have to do with altruism? The objectivists say that their willingness or eagerness to DIE, to have their children and grandchildren DIE, to reclaim the honor of Arabs (the group or Umma), and to fulfill Allah's commands via Muhammad, is seen by objectivists as the ultimate in Self-Sacrifice.
But it's really extreme selfishness, from a different angle.
I see Self sacrifice as more like giving a beggar $1 or a few, giving an annoying friend without a car a ride to a meeting or to run errands, working overtime for money during a work crisis, arguing in favor of Zionism with no pay, after having spent years arguing against it in favor of social justice. Blecch! 🤮
Not as a lifelong crusade to kill or try to cause injury to enemies who disrespected Allah, and to continue to do so despite the factor of high risk of death.
Two outta three brother. Good call for the most part.
Never met a communist with callouses on there hands, yet they expect a guy like me to blindly obey them.
Stalin - Born into a peasant family in Georgia
- Worked in a Siberian work camp after robbing a bank under the Tsar, in order to give funds for the revolution. Not a mooch or leech, worked in the background of the communist party as secretary, and was voted in because everyone appreciated his role.
If we look at Trotsky, we'll notice something different.
- Born into a fairly wealthy family, could probably call it middle class.
- Did not work in labour as far as I know, but did revolutionary agitation, even in 1905
- Not really a mooch/leech, but actually organised when Lenin wasn't there. Not respected as much due to his argumentative nature. Lost the Soviet Leadership and kept trying to destabilise the nation, sent to Kazakhstan, still kept doing it, so sent to other places, where he kept doing it, so he got kicked out again and again, until ending up in Mexico and was assasinated by an ex-Trotskyist (rumoured to be in the NKVD, however there was no evidence so far.)
My goodness, Karl Marx is a monster
Correct, he was an average socialist.
"Capitalists of the world will remember my carbuncles!".
He was an exceptional Socialist.@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231
a monster created by plutocrats, grandson of rabbis, never stepped foot in a factory or smelled the sweat of the proletariat married with the millionaire Jenny, in 1843, or rather, the daughter of the aristocrats of the Westphalen house. As we can see, Moses Mordechai's greatest love, , was indeed Capital and money.
@@LoganLS0 that's like being an exceptionally tall midget.
It took me 64 years to realize how bad parenting is way, way, way more prevalent than good parenting. You would think that providing your children with love, warmth and support are things you naturally provide them with but it’s tragically not the case. I’m really naive….
Not sure that's correct. You may just be noticing the bad examples more because they can become very destructive, and negative things grab our attention fiercely.
@@RafaelDolfe-qm6ll you do have a point that bad examples tend to stick out more. Many of my close friends did have, as far as I can make out, happy childhoods with good parents but…the majority of bad parenting victims were people I got to know intimately through having relationships with. In most cases this is when very dark places get to be shown.
i know when i was a young fellow back in the late '80's early '90's there were lots of girls that wanted a welfare baby. It was a career choice
Most people in general are naive when it comes to bad parenting. In fact most people will just write off as “oh they are doing their best”. Or oh “it’s for your own good”. No, absolutely not, bad parents deserve to be called out and told they are bad parents. Other wise we are all condoning the abuse of children.
@@cristianluna5568 Haven't you heard, it's not abuse, it's "character building experiences", and when those fail I guess the child was just born rotten, the parents did nothing wrong and were loving in their own way!
It's all a big Cluster B circus of drama and people keep getting sucked into it even if they aren't disordered themselves.
I discussed this night after night with a friend of mine (who was a devoted Freudian and psychoanalist) for years and years. This is just scratching the surface, you'll find there's a lot more to this "Psychologically predictable Socialists" hypothesis than you might think at first. Such as the suppression of sexual desires, the looking/need for fatherly confirmation, and other "offbeat" hehaviour being a core-part of the "socialist psyche".
And no, it's not a coincidence that hordes of socialists are against the "white cisgender male", in fact this is a core idea in their worldview... No idea if they are aware of it themselves though!
Man this is gonna catch a lot of Flak...
As an ex-socialist myself, I can say they're probably not aware of any of what I said in the video.
Also, just to point out, Freud and Carl Jung were both Hermeticists. After learning this fact, I no longer view their opinions so highly.
@@TheImperatorKnightthe enemy of gnostics is both orthodoxy or catholicism(protestantism doesn't count,it emulates some of their points,especially the rapture crowd).
I've known 2 committed socialists that I've talked to a lot over decades and gotten to know well. And, no, they have no idea that there's a psychological and developmental aspect to their beliefs. They think they're rational and anybody who doesn't agree with them must be stupid.
The first was an only child whose mother spoiled the hell out of him and his father told him to be a Man. He thought that having a penis was good enough. He found a menial job where he only had to work a couple of hours a day and his boss let him spent the rest of the day reading. He complained bitterly about the job and his boss. He wanted to be an intellectual but he hated writing. It cut into his drug taking. He thinks that most people are stupid.
The other one had a good father but she hated her mother. She has Mother Derangement Syndrome: Anything her mother is for she has to be against. She had to raise her kids by herself so she had to have a series of minimum wage jobs where she felt like she was being exploited by capitalism. All the evils of the world were the fault of capitalists. She loves Marx and she had the Vision while living on the streets of San Francisco during the Summer of Love. Dugs were involved. She's deeply unhappy and thinks most people are stupid. She most wants to be recognized as a great artist.
In both cases it was obvious that they became socialists because of family dynamics but neither could see it. They're both trying to get revenge on what they feel is a cruel world.
Well, capitalism is really the same coin. Yes, millions died under communism. However millions died under the white supremacist capitalism.
@TIK - and yet you've utterly fallen into Freud's trap. "Family problems "of some conceivable kind, strict parenting with physical abuse, as well as profound religiousness, missing or absent parent(s), were all not only very common, but might under a wider sense be said to have been the norm. Depending on how wide you make the goalposts, anybody could have some kind of problem. These people were not lazy by any measure... I am just personally very disappointed in this showing, TIK. Hope you get out of this rabbit hole before you end up thinking it's all about penises or their height or some such nonsense :).
The vast majority of social problems could be solved by having good fathers at home.
Problem is there are not that many good dads out there
Starting to see why the commies pushed feminism as one of their first vectors of attack?
Such as life.
Starting to see where feminism fits into all this?
@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231 One of the worst ideologies to plague mankind.
Dont forget Chen Duxiu, founder of the CCP and first to publish Mao in his New Youth magazine. Also had a domineering father and abusive confucian teacher, became a social darwinist, and then a Leninist. He pioneered the philosophy of the "four olds", and a vanguardist "period of tutelige for the Chinese people" meant to break them of their peasent conditioning. After being expelled from his own party, he reverted to confucianism and lamented his involvement in a movement that annihilated traditional Chinese culture.
They are hating peasants so much aren’t they? No warlord was so cruel to peasants. The most hardworking, most beneficial people for society. The ones who were feeding them.
And that's the lesson: never let a zealot gain power. Never ever.
@@signorasforza354No, they didn't. That's why they kicked him out of the party.
@@tempejkl didn’t ask a cummie
A great WWII vet and teacher I had in school once told us in the 8th grade, that 20th century marxist revolutionaries came from journalism or education backgrounds. He elaborated by saying they observe and teach but revolutionaries never participate in real "labor" until power can be gained from it such as political or military power. He had some good takes on this subject and it fascinated me as a kid. He was a WW2 vet who lost his right foot in the war but when he was discharged he went back to school to teach history. He was a hard but very fair man. He called all of the "revolutionaries" mama's boys and he had a deep distain for Mao and all socialist ideas!
This reminds me of that scene from Starship Troopers where Michael Ironsides explains the state.
Your teacher was based AF
@@BLOODYMESSI4H Oh he was a great guy! He told us the German's and Italians were socialists when all other history teachers said they were not. But he actually fought them so he had a first hand knowledge. He made us learn the American revolution, the 2 world wars and the entire Cold War over the 8th grade year in history and it was so much fun. He passed away in 2001 right before 9-11! HE would hate the state of the world right now.
And the guy was factually incorrect just like this insane video
@@tidakada7357 Always amusing to see socialists out themselves.
Laziness and poor parenting. There's the pattern
There is a reason honor thy father and mother is so important.
Laziness stems from poor parenting there not equal issues
Look at the propaganda coming out of Hollywood. All designed to damage family life.
Look at how men(fathers) are demonised. Look at posh kids at campuses zero in on the evils of their own country's past but ignore the present day evils of other countries.
And 100 wars worldwide at this moment, but which one do they protest?
Uh, H*tler was literally the opposite of lazy
Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were, by any definition, extreme workaholics, to the point of damaging their own health. They had virtually no private lives and lived for their work. This video's thesis is pretty stupid, and just.. pandering.
Even Georges Sorel is the son of a businessman.
In the fact, the only one with some claim of being a pleb and a socialist is Emiliano Zapata, and it so happens that the Mexican revolution seems to be the only major revolution without an aristocratic stint (yes, I do consider the October revolution a rebellion of the aristocratic "professional workers")
Don't talk shit, bro. Emiliano Zapata wasn't a pleb; he actually had property. We could put him between middle class and high middle class by contemporary standards. He WASN'T a socialist at all; he was very skeptical and aggressive towards the idea of land redistribution as the marxists proposed
He was CATHOLIC reactionary in his roots, his movement was motivated by the management and organization of land that the Crown of Spain had established in the indigenous communities, torn down with the masonic and traitor government of liberals in the XIX century leaded by the traitor Benito Juarez.
His image has been used by the stupid socialists who, as always, take idols and heroes who have nothing to do with socialism. The lack of their own true heroes motivates this narrative and propaganda.
Pancho Villa in the other hand has humble origins and a more though childhood, son of plebs, no studies, no education, no property at all, And again he as well was very antisocialist, in fact Pancho Villa has more in common with fascist and nationalist views. He was anti yankee, anti chinese, and he also had antisemitic views.
Not really. A slew of communist militants as well as party / state leaders hailed from humble circumstances, to say the least. Foremost amongst them N. S Khrushchev. Along with Walter Ulbricht, Ernst Thalmaan, Earl Browder, Maurice Thorez, Harry Pollitt, Francisco Largo Cabellero, Doleres Ibarurri, Janos Kadar, Josip Broz Tito, Nicolae Caecesku(sic), Wladislaw Gomulka,..the list is nigh on interminable…
What about Stalin?
@@tempejkl Wasn't his early life quite cleric, being raised by a local church father?
@@tyvamakes5226 He was originally going to be a priest (idk about his father). He wrote poems under a pseudonym and became a local sensation for his poems. Then, when he became a socialist, he put his life on the line for the revolution, robbing banks to raise funds, and then being sent to forced labour camps for this.
Psychologically, it's always the same: Envy, victimization, a sense of entitlement, under-responsibility, ultimately vulnerable narcissism.
It is often a defensive reaction caused by narcissistic injury when a reality shock causes the artificial victim identity to shake.
Psychologically, it is a fear of "becoming" behind socialism, due to learned helplessness in childhood.
Strong conditioning, moral standardization through shaming and validation-dependent behavior. It is simply extremely mentally unhealthy to have such mental models and not to question them. The mental place of origin is the antidote: focus only on the things you can change in your life instead of sacrificing around and placing responsibility on external sources. The state, God and society are substitutes for the parents who messed things up.
This is the biggest socio-psychological catastrophe of our time.
I don't think there is an antidote. How many people can admit that they wasted their life?
@@neilreynolds3858 Theyll be forced to either way. Reality always delivers the mail. So either do it now, or let it build up more and suffer greater later on.
As someone who grew up in an athiest household I could never understand the edgy athiest anti christian thing.
I could never put a finger on it. Over time I began to understand that they weren't athiests at all, they were just upset with their parents to much older ages than is reasonable. The same as almost all of these boys.
My dad was an atheist. He didn't like being told that doing whatever he wanted to do was wrong. It was amusing to be taken to church on Sunday and then listening to my dad tell me why it was all BS afterwards.
Maybe you wouldn't call me an "edgy athiest[sic] anti christian", but I can assure you that I am very definitely a conclusional atheist, and absolutely opposed to the filth that is christianity. I paid close attention to the sermons I heard twice every Sunday throughout my formative years, and I have read a lot since then, both by christians and by atheists, in addition to even more material on UA-cam, including people who are showing where christians got their ideas from. Hint: it should far more be called Greco-Roman than "Judeo-christian". Maybe the real problem is that your parents were too lazy to look into / teach you about christianity?
@@stephannaro2113 yeah being anti-theist isn't "edgy atheism" when you actually know how destructive religion can be (and frequently is), and it most certainly is not entirely a bunch of bitter believers coping about there being no god, although there are a lot of those too.
@@hckr_-gh7se People who are bitter that YHWH doesn't exist... sheesh!
Many self-proclaimed athiests get into what is called a secular religion i.e a cult..
Kinda sad that a father who had no education wanted his kids to be educated were exposed to radical ideas. 12:31 man.... I assume this many parents fears right now.
Goverments are teaching gay sex for kids nowadays
Then become a good parent, and if you cannot become one, then do your best to encourage and uphold a healthy society, either by voting or by simply speaking about it.
@@anthroimperzia3927 Voting? Hows democracy any different from communism, with the means of production of even law, defense and justice publicly owned, some of the most important things and as such the most important to remain fully within the free/black market only.
I once had someone ask me in disbelief "how can you understand economics if you haven't read Karl Marx". It was a few years back, so I had no answer at the time other than he didn't seem to be relevant to any economics that I had ever met. Now I know why.
😂
To me the more I learned of and read Karl Marx, the less I understand how people think he was correct.
I reject the Dictatorship of Guilt. I am, therefore I think.
As you should.
Who is John Galt?
That is such a deceptive statement. Do you know what it really means?
I agree with this statement so much. "I think, therefore I am." has brought so much destruction to the modern world.
The truth is always "I am, therefore I think."
@@WolfeTone17-98 are you tarded?
How the hell did anyone take Marx seriously?!
People believe frauds. They do crazy things when you promise them some free cookies.
@signorasforza354
I know. Still, his claims are so outrageous, and he is such an obviously ignorant and borderline batshit crazy source that it strains credulity that soo many supposedly intelligent people fall for it....
@@marksharp3990 Those intelligent people are frauds themselves, morally corrupted people or people with psychological problems because of bad upbringing. Every time I was having a discussion with an “intelligent” communist, in the end they were praising, justifying, denying or minimizing all horrendous stuff commies did and were slandering their opponents and victims with ridiculous lies. Cummunism is a religion for thugs.
Zionists control all literature publishing. Stung by 19th C criticism that Gods chosen people produce NOTHING Zionist Literature produced 3 towering pseudo intellectuals to flood the world. Marx, Freud and Einstein. They shape much of modern thinking. And so much of it is FRAUD. Freud based all of his scientific "psychology" on his own personal bowel habits and the toilet habits & hangups of the jewish community in Vienna. Which comes from the Talmud a fake holy book. Search jewish Scatology. Their obsession with faeces not openly admitted but celebrated.
@@marksharp3990What of his claims were "outrageous"?
Quick look at Hitlers artwork it looks technically no worse than painters I saw at art college.
His artwork was brilliant. Iv got a copy of his painting of the Virgin Mary and child. It's brilliant. Iv saw seen many of his paintings. They are brilliant.
He was better than most I've seen.
@@Occident. If you have to say "brilliant" that many times, it indicates that you don't really believe what you're saying.
@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231 Isn't art brilliant! It is like pictures you can hang on your wall and then look at them ! Brilliant!
He was completely self taught. If he would have had formal training he could have gone far
I contribute nothing to society yet I feel that it is unfair that I do not reap the same rewards as those who do contribute are getting. At the same time, my existence is entirely dependent upon the charity of my family and friends or the obligations of the government to provide for all of its citizens a basic standard of living.
My conclusion, I am faultless in my plight of poverty and powerlessness and the system is to blame for my inability to succeed. My lack of effort is just a symptom of a society that does not reward its best and brightest, as I certainly consider myself to be amongst that class.
The honest inner monologue of every socialist.
My follow-up to that is: A considerable number of the people that adhere to the ideology of socialism have deluded themselves into believing that merely existing is grounds for being provided for. They lack the critical thinking ability to recognize that if everyone acted as they did, society would collapse because nobody would produce anything. At the same time, if the rewards for contributing are no better than rewards for not contributing, that disincentivizes people from working. Why should I be working when I'm no better off than those who don't? The crucial step in transitioning from a capitalist to a socialist society is equalizing the standard of living for the welfare class and the working class. This demoralizes the working class to such a degree that they see any change at all as an improvement of the status quo.
@@Subzeropole I think they know that people would stop producing if they didn't have to provide for themselves, but it goes back to what you said about them thinking of themselves as intellectually superior. They think they're the only ones clever enough to figure out they can just sit on their ass all day and get a free handout, because the rest of us dummies would be out working to provide for them.
👍👍
I mean, they were all clearly talented. Nobody will make a videos about you in 100 years and you will be lucky if any of your descendants mention you.
You know this basically explains a large chunk of the modern leftists
Yes! Most radical leftists from the 60s came from comfortable upper class or upper middle class backgrounds and never had to work their way through college. It's definitely a pattern.
The reason studying REAL history is crucial....
Never met an actual working class leftist before, most of them are more conservative or libertarian while most leftists are middle to upper class.
And it likely describes the many Billionaire socialists.
@@coke8077You've just outed yourself as someone who doesn't talk to working class people. Funny.
In my teens and throughout my 20s most of my friends were girls. In my early 30s I started learning more about politics and slowly discovered that I disagreed with socialism and Marxists. Because of this I lost almost all of those female friends. It helped me see the reality of feminism which was the straw that broke the camels back
How is feminism different then how you viewed it in the past?
Or if I'm misunderstanding can you please expand
@@tylermorrison420 I was total normie, I honestly thought it was about female empowerment. This was also a very artsy clique, the witchy tattoo girls
Feminism = pear shaped socialism in comfortable shoes
Have you seen the Fiamento Files here on UA-cam? I also thought that feminism was about equality and that if I didn't agree with it, I'd be considered to be against women. Vile stuff that ideology is
@@PinkTorpedo909 I was in my 20s in the 90s, and I remember all the trendy white girls became "wiccans" to be hip and "rebel against patriarchy". My, how far things have gone.
7:32 i unfortunately went through this chart minus the religious upbringing part. I undid the hatred of reality and capitalism, but still working on the laziness and fear of independence. Wish me luck.
Good luck m8
TIL I have all the hallmarks of a socialist dictator
Good thing I hopped on the capitalism train as soon as I could.
Good luck. Rooting for you.
I feel you brother
You can do it
I disagree with the statement that a Christian must sacrifice everything to help others. The Bible doesn’t say help everyone all the time and let yourself be helpless and to destroy your own image of self. I understand that there’s a pattern with religion and socialist upbringings. However, I believe it stems from a misunderstanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Not from the teachings themselves. As another commenter mentioned, bad parenting seems to be a major part of many of their lives.
Yeah there's a big gap between "Charity and helping others is good" and "You just destroy yourself to help others" which Tik just seems to glide over
Altruism is built into the Seven Deadly Sins and the virtues.
I went out with a Catholic woman recently who has stayed with the nuns in Rome. She was so poor that she couldn't afford to buy gifts for people at Christmas, and was forced to bake cookies for her friends and family instead. Yet, on one date she turns up and tells me that she had just given her last pound to the tramp in the street. She told me her friends would ring her drunk in the middle of the night and ask her to pick them up, and being an atlruistic "good girl" she would get out of bed and go pick them up.
She admitted she was depressed, was constantly being taken advantage of, and was in therapy. I told her straight that it was her faith that was the cause of this, and she said "I know". Her 'self' was lacking because she had sacrificed it for everyone else. That's why she was also very tense and on edge all the time. I could tell she had anger issues. I've had family members who were in the same boat.
So it's difficult to for me to accept that Christian doctrine says a person shouldn't sacrifice themselves for the good of others when every adherent of the faith does exactly that and it's built into the doctrine.
@@TheImperatorKnightnot 'every' adherent of the faith does this, trad Caths can be overly legalistic and zealous about the faith sure but this anecdote could be countered with others about converts who are much better off in the faith than otherwise. The problem with Marxism is its a bastardization of the good of the faith
@@TheImperatorKnight that’s one person though. And only one Christian faith. Not everyone is the same and we’re all individuals. Everyone has different views on religion and some take it too far. As I stated it’s a misunderstanding of the beliefs not the beliefs themselves. It doesn’t say help everyone all the time and never pay attention to yourself. You have to pay attention to oneself because of the spiritual journey to Christ. Part of it is self improvement. How could you improve yourself if there’s supposed to be an absence of oneself? At least I can say this about Russian orthodoxy. And I’m not saying altruism is not dangerously. It definitely can be destructive. I agree with that.
@@TheImperatorKnight Sin is an inherent part of ourselves. This doesn’t make us terrible or guilty. It’s the fact that we let it run amok that we should feel terrible about. You have to take sin in moderation, so that you may be closer to God and further from the vices of this world.
These men are the perfect depiction of narcissism.
Their upbringing is a perfect recipe for creating narcissists or codependents, depending on the personality type.
Exactly narcissists
"I think I've said enough about this idiot."
No you haven't.
Seven hour TIK lectures about the rotten compulsions of socialism should replace Seven hour lectures about diversity equity and inclusion in university campuses.
Can't wait until you crack open another video in this style on Democracy and maybe one on "Third-Positionism" even if the latter may be redundant in some areas.
Mankind has been forced to bite deeply from the fruits of these botched post-enlightenment "ideas" for too long.
TIK probably read this and thought "damnit he's right, I'm not done"🤣
Re-return?🙊
And yet, you would watch those 7 hours on a device made in a socialist (communist) country 🤣😁
@@aleksazunjic9672 And you watch this video on UA-cam which is a capitalist corporation 😂😂
@aleksazunjic967 nah my phone is made in south Korea and that is not socialist
I agree with a lot of this, but I disagree that "altruism" is a sufficient enough explanation for the excesses of socialism. The vast majority of the world believes in one altruist philosophy or another... but uniquely socialism is so brutal.
Altruism in religion doesn't seem to be making the world better either. How many people have the Christians, Muslims, and Hindus killed?
Maybe though this is my thinking. Altruism taken to the utmost insane conclusion
1 hour video? COUNT ME IN!
First! Congrats!
Up next: 1 hour of TANKS 🤟
@@TheImperatorKnight I'll take tanks or philosophy or economics - anything but TIK's psychoanalyses. He's a smart guy with a wide base of knowledge, but this one is finally well outside his scope. I think there's confirmation bias. People who are intellectually misled into being socialists can and do come from all backgrounds, and are often passionate workaholics (indeed like both Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler). TIK's not only going against his own individualist position (apparently unknowingly?) - by diminishing personal agency, but if he goes down this Freudian rabbit hole he'll end up thinking it's all about height or penis size or whatever.... :D
💀Hatred creates the worst monsters...💀
Like Netanyahu.
@@Occident. And bush and obama and biden and clinton and bush sen. and reagan and etc.....
@@veryunusual126 sure cummies.
Lutherans are taught that justification comes from faith/scripture alone. The Catholic Church that they were rebelling against taught that justification came from faith/tradition (works). I have noticed that this is a big deal with protestant people I met.
it is a pretty important doctrinal difference. Though the altruism described as part of Lenin's upbringing is neither lutheran, catholic, or christian altogether.
Judiasm's attitude to altruism isn't the same as Christianity. While charity is encouraged "Self Immolation" for the sake of others is forbidden.
Indeed. And Jesus's criticisms of it were primarily aimed at the very same corrupt intentions of chasing an outward appearance of generosity and overall "righteousness" that we see among "altruists." "Virtue-signaling", in modern parlance. He never advocated for creating hierarchical systems to take up the burden of charity, and the Parable of Talents is explicitly capitalist in principle and describes the very Pareto distribution that socialists have been waging ideological war against.
Judaism is a form of Satanism. There is no denying of that . Veil from the temple was torn from top to bottom.
It's also forbidden in actual Christianity. Unfortunately, TIK, as good as he is, hasn't studied the subject enough. The whole "he had a religious upbringing, therefore he became a socialist" thing is a bit silly, since EVERYONE had the identical religious upbringing back then, and 99.9999% of those with "religious upbringings" didn't become revolutionary socialists.
@@historyandhorseplaying7374 And most of those who are Lutheran were in German-speaking areas. Which... yeah there's like a 50% chance they would have been Lutheran at the time in that case.
@@professorhaystacks6606 Yep and if they'd grown up in Bavaria they'd likely have had Catholic religious upbringings, like everyone else too.
This psychology 101 bit comes off as half baked and malicious. Hundreds of millions of people had mean fathers and a religious upbringing during the time these men lived
Yes, and in some it's a catalyst.
@@dwwolf4636bollocks
Yes. It is a cheap, void argument.TIK would better do some lecture about The Holy Bible, when Christians are concerned, before saying things like this. Evil is real. He, of all people, knows that.
yeah. This guy just talks as if he is rambling on about random shit. Because that's what he's doing.
They really were characters out of "Demons" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
I have not red demons but the Social democrats or the Marxists used it as inspiration, at least Stalin but I assume the other prominent ones did as well.
Dostoyevsky himself was a property of government after amnesty. Russian empire was a collectivist country without any property rights. Everything was belonging to tzar. Even thoughts. No laws, no court, private property, no rights. Only obedience and serfdom.
@@signorasforza354 So thats why communism took over so easily, it was basicly the same thing
@@user-qo1us9oc7g Exactly. Even now russians don’t have any ideological or psychological dissonance in praising empire and ussr at the same time.
@@user-qo1us9oc7g You are right. Even now russians don’t feel any contradiction when they praising empire and ussr in the same time.
This is actually a trend I observed with not so much Socialists but Dictators generally. All had terrible relationships with parent(s). Which is why we must strengthen families
Someone did a study of the paternal relationships of the 100 or so most cited feminists, and couldnt find many that had a good relationship with their father.
@@elLootogonna see a lot of feminists and dictators in the next 50 years 😂
So true it hurts.. I was some kind of socialist as young person and had poor relationship with parents and later had an absent father. My morals have indeed shifted as well as the view on the "demon" called socialism. I was weak and lost and not until in my late 30s I got more independent and my eyes saw things in a different light you might say. I abandoned religion, I voted differently, I actually began to genuinely care more for others but began encouraging and coaching friends rather than spoil them with money and concrete help. "Help to self help" you could say. Still my journey has not ended yet but watching and listen to Tik is like completing a puzzle and you begin to see the over arching order of society. Capitalism is like life with different shades from white to black while socialism is a black hole that at first glance was a shining gloria.
In hindsight I wish I would have seen it earlier but what can you do... at least I did not destroy the life of others in the same way as all these infamous socialists.
So Tik has been reading Ayn Rand I guess
Something I recommend for all.
He mentioned re ently finding out about their writing fairly recently..
Yup. Sometimes I almost regret reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in high school. Makes things a lot harder sometimes. Who the fuck is John Galt?x
@@frankmueller2781 I can't say I'm a total fan but I've read her stuff and yes I think she has her points and should be read.
Who is John Galt?
Jenny Marx after she dumped her fiance to get with Karl: "This has been the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever."
Communists call fascists right-wingers and capitalists fascists, when they are both just different varieties of the same thing.
It's interesting to see that there was one socialist leader who didn't avoid work and had a family life which was actually pretty decent from all accounts: *Tito*
Maybe it's a coincidence, but he's also considered by most to be the least evil of all the old communist leaders.
I believe that the pattern is still there though. He was raised Catholic, was separated from his parents, lost the faith etc. I'd need to look at him in more depth though to be sure.
Stalin certainly didn't avoid work. He was in a forced labour camp in Siberia, after risking his life for the revolution, by robbing a Tsarist bank to raise funds.
At the risk of sounding like a redpiller, I have always thought the socialist ethos to be inherently feminine. The desire to do for others by any means so they don't have to do for themselves is the essence of the devouring mother archetype.
Socialists have the desire to be protected, sheltered, to spend as much as the richest and can't understand why we can't borrow and spend beyond our means and face no consequences for it. Very feminine indeed.
... and the desire to be waited on hand-and-foot by others is a childlike habit...
Rishi Sunak: My father was a tool maker. [angry face]
Me: [Trying to ingnore that other short man who was born in Georgia whose father was a lowly tradesman]
American Googles...ohhhhhh....ohhhhhh noooing for context...Ohhhhh! Oooooohhhhh nnnnoooo!!! And he's already PM! Chancellor Sunak here you come!
You mean Sir Kier Starmer ( the man who will finish what Tony Blair started )
Labour and Conservatives are one in the same.
No. Starmer said that.
But....they are BOTH useless.
It's Kier Starmer who spat his dummy out, when the crowd showed humorous contempt when he brought up, "my father, the tool maker".
Interestingly, the New Testament was key to the affirmation of the individual as a distinct entity. However, the individual has agency and responsibility. When you define 'Altruism', it is the sort of construction popularized by Ayn Rand. It fits into a Hegelian dialectic, which creates a convenient strawman.
In the 19th Century, most children would lose at least one parent before adulthood, so drawing attention to this as a factor weakens your argument. At least I would have thought so.
In England and Wales the late 19th century, it is estimated that around 15-20% of children lost at least one parent by the age of 15.
-Wrigley, E.A., & Schofield, R.S. (1981). The Population History of England 1541-1871: A Reconstruction
Additionally these socialists came from wealthy bourgeoise backgrounds so the loss of a parent during childhood would be less common for them.
For real
@@johnw574given they grew up in a rich family background. They're basically spoiled children wanting more free stuff without the hardships.
@@francisquebachmann7375That's quite literally the opposite of socialism.
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 Mafia (Vory) 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!
Not only Vory(aka robbers) but Vory and KGB. Criminals and kgb are two foundations of ruzzia. That’s why they love cummunists. Because cummunists love thugs.
Comintern was functioning just like mafia.
Neutrally calling it "parental issues" instead of mere "father issues" is a step in the right direction.
In detail the elements that stand out are 1) neglect / absence 2) an enabling, at worst oedipal parent (usually the mother), equal to "anti-authoritarian" parenting styles - the overt tyrant (usually the father) seems to be optional and seems to lead to the same outcome as the absent father. I would understand why someone would surmise "but then it's mommy-issues!", however, the other parent is supposed to compensate for such errors. Also the rule of thumb "Narcissists beget narcissists" needs to be considered. The term is better understood as "emotional immaturity" imho.
Important backstory information in this video, thanks for sharing!!
1) This whole thing would explain why so many countries define the nation as "Fatherland", yet Soviet Russia is almost exclusively defined as "The Motherland";
2) I noticed that Crime and Punishment (mostly from the Soviet adaptation of the book) basically describes every single Communist revolutionary exactly as depicted in this video: dependent on their family, especially the women, rebellious, restless, lazy, scrounging for money despite having a disdain for the common man and strongly supported by that one friend with cash that really can't stand seeing them down in the gutter. I wonder how much of it is coincidence and how much is an actual parallel.
Don't know why you're referring to Soviet Russia/Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic in the present tense as it hasn't existed in 30 fucking years. The USSR was the Motherland, not the RSFSR.
I think Mussolini was probably one of the few authoritharian leaders who had a good relationship with his father to the point of taking his socialist ideas from him.
Then there is Enver Hoxha who cared more for his uncle Hysen (or Baba Çeni) than his own father Hysen who was a timid imam to the point that he got accustomed to call him "uncle" and never father.
The one saving quality of Mondays! It’s TIK day! 😁😁
Great video, keep up the great work!
The work that must have gone into this 1 hour of video... I salute you sir. Fantastic..
In the book you often cite "Heaven On Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism by Joshua Muravchik " when he got on to how Marx was looked after by Engels and his Children did the same. In fact when Uncle Engels went to the shadow realm they lost their means of survival. And even went voluntary went to the shadow realm.
Funny enough there was a video on Teddy Rosevelt’s upbringing recently and all I was thinking was “huh it feels like the opposite of TIK’s videos where a leader actually did hard work, had loving parents and understood being independent
... Damn
And Teddy cracked down on corporations and fought against capitalist businessmen. Your point is?
these socialists genuinly sound like drug addicts that always ask you 'can i borrow a 10, i'll pay you back later'
Funny enough, when I was watching your video based lenin before the revolution, this video and so I clicked on this rather quickly. Have a video suggestion, can you talk about the concept regarding nationalism and how it differs from patriotism? The reason for this is because it helps explain why the First World War started the way it did, but also for WW2 as well, since the Nazis, the Italian Fascists, and the Japanese Empire are all nationalists. What do you think?
I find this question so interesting that I'm writing an essay on it. I would share with you, but... it is in Spanish as this is my mother language.
Anyway, my thesis is that patriotism and nationalism are, not only different, but OPPOSITE.
Patriotism is the natural feeling of love and gratefulness we all (should) have to our family, society, town, neighbourhood and country. While nationalism is the ellaborate ideology we use to justify xenophobia.
Certainly would be a good discussion.
@@FaramirGL That's an interesting take on it. Thanks. And good luck with your thesis. 👍
@@FaramirGL I'd honestly say that Nationalism is just the expression of the tribal instincts that are hardwired into us. There is always going to be the us and the them. Patriotism is a yardstick by which you can measure someone's devotion to their particular 'team'.
I think of you look back at his previous videos you'll find your answer. Nationalism wasn't the cause of WW1 or 2. It was a mixture of failing institutions, economics, faulty philosophies, and power dynamics of the ruling classes of those prospective countries. Nationalism, (identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations), doesn't push nations to start wars with other nations. Reason is simple- by attacking another nation you would destroy a portion of your own economy and pollute your culture with the defeated enemy- provided you won, of course- worse if you lose..
Germany, Italy, and Japan were way more than just nationalists. Their belief in a racial spirit that, being infused within and justified by the state, gave them a justification to dominate and take from others and then putting those others to work for their state. This is not nationalism, it is a perverted religion of the state. A more simplistic way to look at it-
Nationalist- Whatever is good for my people is good for my country.
Religious Statist- Whatever is good for the state serves the people (because the state and the people are "spiritually mixed" according to their stupid religion).
Great video. My only potential contention with the whole ‘dislike of responsibility or laziness’ aspect, is the fact that individuals like Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini etc. became leaders, individuals like Stalin for example had been a terrorist gangster kingpin and lived quite dangerously as such both with the law and rivals, which is naturally stressful. And he not only became a leader, but probably the epitome of absolutism, I’d wager that even the most authoritarian of absolute monarchs could only dream of the power that Stalin had centralised around himself.
But apart of that absolutism is the fact he was constantly working, for example in I believe one of your Stalingrad related videos, it’s noted that Stalin at one point worked 22 hours in a single day. So, and I could be wrong but, it doesn’t seem apparent to me that Stalin was lazy considering that leadership is naturally the most responsible and taxing of jobs, or perhaps Stalin’s desire for power overrided his initial laziness, allowing him to ‘grow up’ in a perverted sense.
Again with Mussolini, instead of becoming a recipient of a regime he became its conductor, naturally a stressful, taxing position, once again with Lenin and then the moustache man himself, inheriting positions that were not only constant but lifelong. Perhaps the same idea I have with Stalin applies for them too. To an unproductive recipient, a socialist regime is an ‘ideal’, but why would that unproductive recipient become a leader which is the job that naturally takes on the most ‘productive’ and responsible aspect.
True, TIK's definition is kind of self-defeating. He argues that all socialists have been bums, but those socialist dictators took huge responsibilities and had a heavy workload. Lenin's political work was so taxing that he suffered a stroke, Hitler spoke about how his duty to the country had destroyed his health.
What "work" did they do exactly? I reckon they mostly likely delegated most of their responsibilities, and were more of an overseer than anything else. Just as it is now with modern politicians that have others writing their speeches, policies, legislation etc. Ambitious, but they do lack work ethic, and being in government gives them the opportunity to make massive gains while doing the least.
@@die1mayer they didn’t take responsibility, they were committing atrocious human experiments and were failing horribly but their actions were justified by their zealots. Even now they are justifying all disgrace and cringe with plain lies and manipulations.
Good point. I think the laziness and lack of responsibility is only when it's "real" work. They were very excited to work as hard as they could for their own purposes - writing theory, doing revolutionary activity, and the later controlling of the state for Lenin. But when it came to having a normal job whose purpose wasnt to control or gain control, then they were not keen on it.
While I am unable to speak to 'altruism' of the many religions my own person experience has be always been to be charitable with your (spare) time but never ever just give away your labors, that was considered to be an unhealthy and self-defeating act.
TIK used Ayn Rand’s definition which is why Altruism is being cast in such a negative light. Who was one of the most anti-altruistic people ever to live. In short a dictionary should have been used to define Altruism, not a political thinker who completely opposes the idea.
Killing it lately TIK. Keep it up. Thanks
Fantastic this is an insightful and unexpected proposition.
Collection of Rolce Royce cars owned by Lenin dont look altruistic to me😏
In practice altruism means redistributing your wealth, not theirs.
These "connections" are so tenuous as to be virtually meaningless. Almost every human being on earth was brought up with a religious upbringing prior to the mid 20th century. The vast majority of humanity brought up in a stable home has disciplinarian father and a loving nurturing mother. The only thing in common seams to be laziness.
Most of them also have a hatred of the patriarchal line, even if a few cases not directly the father, though most cases it does end up being a hatred for the father, which makes sense since Communist thinking is inherently a product of weak feminine thought. (Strong feminine thought would call the man to work for payment)
Show me a socialist leader (relevant, st least country level) with a good relation with his paternal line
Laziness, true, but a TIK explained, there is more to it that then that...
@@felipeignacioavilapizarro3698 at least country level? I don’t see how it makes sense to judge an entire ideology (and supposed “cause” of it) by looking at a very small portion of them, but I’ll list a few very significant socialist leaders as examples. Rosa Luxemburg, one of the founders and leaders of the communist movement in Germany, had a very close relationship with her family. Angela Davis, prominent member of the black panthers. Huey p Newton, founder of the black panthers. The list goes on and on. Family issues are very common, you could make the argument that they cause any ideology if your logic is that many people of a certain ideology share that experience so that must be what caused their beliefs.
TIK, around the 16 min area in the video, you mention the practice of usury among the Js, but present a limited data set that may make it seem to be a more recent phenomenon, and you only speak of the restrictions put on Js without mentioning the reasons for those restrictions. It should be said that usury is explicitly commanded in the millennia old (ancient nit medieval) J-ish religious texts - they are supposed to take advandage of other people in a way they are prohibited from doing to other Js. Also, as recorded in "200 years together" some European countries like Russia and Germany tried to force integration of the Js. In the Russian pale of settlement, Js often let the land they were supposed to work fall into disrepair instead of being productive, wasting it. Where they were in charge of others who would work the land, they took advantage and drove the peasants into poverty and starvation hording all profits for themselves. The restrictions were beneficial responses to J-ish abuses.
It seems like Tik is too scared to say the truth about the JQ
Proper tea 😂 that cracked me up! Very interesting video as always, TIK! Thank you!
Seeing how many people with the same traits tend to come from better places than the people they claim to defend, represent and to share bad experiences (aside from losing relatives and such) my take is that it is something that appears in those people to a certain extent too
A "true" altruist works to be able to provide, to be able to give.
These egoists were only concerned with their image and delusions. They didn't give of themselves, they only took and gave of others.
Plus they always see themselves as the victims, as the poor. I've never seen a socialist give to charities, never.
Fascinating and thought-provoking, Tik - thank you.
☝️😎
The self-awareness that videos like these instill is invaluable.
Saloth Sar (Pol Pot) had a fairly good childhood, but later received a very strict traditional Buddhist education that promoted total selflessness (Altruism?) and anti-individualism. He later on mixed these principles with extreme Communism, and therefore one of the most brutal dictatorships was born.
Pol Pot was funded by the CIA and not a communist by any means.
One of the poorer showings by TIK: the thesis has problems of confirmation bias. Conveniently "daddy issues" turned into "any family problem whatsoever". Family problems of some conceivable kind, strict parenting with physical abuse, as well as profound religiousness, were all not only very common, but might under a wider sense be said to have been the norm. Depending on how wide you make the goalposts, anybody could have the same problem.
Furthermore, the idea that Lenin or many of these people were "lazy" is directly contradicted by both primary evidence and the scholarly consensus. Lenin and Stalin were, by most definitions, absolute "workaholics", devoting massive portions of their day and lives in general to either academic study or administrative work. They virtually had no private lives. Hitler too was anything but "lazy", ending up on drugs to try and handle his workload... I could go on.
"'Ee never 'ad a job in 'is loif" is just pandering nonsense... Simply speaking, they did chose "careers" as politicians, and generally worked LIKE MAD at it. There's lazy politicians, sure (Churchill was just drunk half the day). Most of these guys were not.
It's not parental issues by themselves, rather altruism and parental issues combined with a loss of faith, leading to a rebellious nature. And no, not everyone has parental issues, apparently.
These people became intellectuals and could read and write a lit, but when it came to getting jobs they were work-shy.
I'm sorry you don't like my videos, but I disagree with your criticism here. There is a clear pattern in their upbringing.
You make some fair points. In Tik's favor, Hitler's time in Vienna was characterized by laziness in every sense of the word. His service in WWI and entry into the beer hall scene and national politics exhibited a much more diligent person. That said, all people in the video feature a disdain for manual labor or any other work deemed "lower than them" (to be fair again, Hitler was a soldier and Stalin an important military leader during the Russian Civil War) and periods where days would be spent daydreaming and indulging in abstract philosophy and other non-practical matters.
@@dIRECTOR259 You would be amazed at how hard a man can work to avoid work. Back when Bill Gates was sane and not consumed by guilt and shame at being rich, he famously said that if he had a particularly tough problem to solve, he would hire a lazy person to do it, because a lazy person would not only figure out a way to do it, but would also find a way to do it cheaply.
@@ladymacbethofmtensk896 Amusing :), but that's just wordplay. The "work" of a politician isn't much different by any sensible standard than that of, say, a lawyer or professor. Campaigning for office, running a political party, or running a country are, by no real measure, "easy" work. And I'd add that few bar the more extreme anarchists would make the argument these are completely unnecessary occupations (i.e. that they do not fulfil a function in society). In fact, being a dictator (of a country or even just a party) is even more work than would be expected of a democratic politician.
@@TheImperatorKnight On the contrary: I absolutely love your videos. I just think you're reading too much into (what may or may not be) a "pattern". This is verging on Freudian gobbledygook. I recommend Kotkin's recent extensive biography of Stalin (vol I) for a more qualified opinion on the spurious nature of the "childhood influence" theories.
A person who works all day studying isn't "work-shy", they're very much "working" on their education. A person who writes all day running a party isn't "work-shy". Unless you radically redefine "work" (perhaps as requiring an employer?), there is no "laziness" in evidence among leading socialists/fascists/nazis. In fact they were all "leading" because they worked like mad.
Truly an eye-opening history video - outstanding!
I've honestly never even thought about it. But, to be honest, pretty much every hardcore socialist I've ever met seemed to hate their parents, but would never turn down their financial support.
Knew someone years ago who went down the rabbit hole. I found out she had a second social media presence for her "True self". It was the usual garbage, but now that I think about it, she spent a LOT of time talking about how her father was a terrible man and "Forced her into slave labor". I.e., He made her get a job when she got out of high school. On her "normal" social media, she was constantly talking about how great he was and once bragged he bought her a new car. That she almost immediately gave to another socialist friend who wrecked it.
Needless to say, we didn't remain friends much longer. Especially when she found out I attended a 2nd Amendment rally and had pictures posted of the antifa losers chilling a block away instead of forcing the revolution like they had promised. That was funny.
Curtis Yarvin is the next stop in your journey.
Your couldn't express more truth
I had quite a hard childhood with an absent and psychologicaly violent father and an extrêmement loving but destroyed mother.
Despite good student habilities I had to struggle à lot against myself to go further my rebel instinct and even time has passed and I started my own company now, I still struggle terribly against my lazyness and lack of discipline. Fortunalely I m good in what I do but it's an everyday struggle.. the refusal of well beeing not to betray my victimal mother against my capitalist father is still present as a reflex in my everyday life. I m seeing a therapist to keep my life together but your conclusions helped me a lot more today than the hour I spent from 7pm to 8pm with him... thank you TIK, you're awesome !
There's a book called "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" by Nathaniel Branden that you may want to check out. It has helped me personally, and by the sounds of it I think you will get something from it too.
A lot of psychology has been based on the works and Freud and Jung, both of whom were Hermeticists. Thus, in my opinion (and it is just an opinion), a lot of therapists are ill equipped to deal with real-life issues. It therefore falls upon our shoulders to do the majority of the work to figure ourselves out.
For me personally, I have have found the works of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff's books on Objectivism extremely helpful, even if at first it doesn't seem like they should be. The negative stigma they have delayed me from looking into them, and I regret that. There's no point in building a house on sand - you've got to have a good philosophical foundation, otherwise it's a fruitless endeavour.
@@TheImperatorKnight Freud seems to have only superficially copied from Yoga. The 3-level system for example (It, Ego, Superego is Manas, Ahamkhara, Buddhi) is way more sophisticated and intricate in its comprehension. Buddhi, which Buddhists seek to cultivate to see reality as objectively as possible for one, is not remotely understood like that in the West. Instead "Reason" is at the same time called harsh and inhumane by the Gnostics and their derivatives, while also claiming to be the only ones to have "Reason"; likely in that endless "wolf in sheep's clothing" ruse. The Enlightenment thus had to fail because it was not led by "Reason" but instead a lot of irrational socialist gobbledigook.
A lot of the Hermeticism/Gnosticism goes further back than Orphicism from what I can tell. There are mentions/complaints about "dialectic sophists who confuse government, to the detriment of the people" ascribed to Konfuzius and Laotse in the 6th century BC in ancient China. Respective books are still later in the stack of books to my right. I'll get there eventually. My first hint about that I had read in a foreword of a not so great translation of the Tao te King by Victor von Strauß.
Looking further into Yoga, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, of which the latter is incomprehensibly ancient, Gnosticism/Hermeticism seems like a direct heresy as the simple product of the limitations of the Narcissistic mind. The Demiurge becomes a necessity for the human mind, especially the emotionally immature, seeks to anthropomorphize everything by default for a more digestible world-model. Hence these ill formulations of, for example, "evolution does" or "evolution wants", ascribing an active will to a passive process. The emotionally immature (narcissist), who totally has figured everything out and knows what God wants and is just helping on the way to accelerate it all towards the paradisical, utopian conclusion, insists to mess around with systems that should not be messed around with by the minds of children, for each time it has spelled doom for humanity (Labour Theory of Value, Lysenkoism, a certain anti-biological ideology currently wrecking academia, which Stanislaw Lem already described as a goal of the Communists, in his "Star Diaries and Memoirs of Iyon Tichy"; highly recommended read, no matter the lacking quality of the English translation).
For protocol: In Taoism, as far as I understand it, there is no creator with a will, there is no plan or intent, the whole thing just "is". The creation-source therefore also has no name and there is no point in worshipping it, and everything just comes from it and returns to it eventually. The word "tao" is effectively just a placeholder. Taoism is passive. But the emotionally immature narcissists cannot comprehend passivity, they are never satisfied without having something concrete they can rebel against and take its place in a childish, almost animalistic, game of dominance hierarchy in the tribe. Hence, they need all this demiurge and material prison nonsense.
In the system of Taoism, all things Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Socialism, Narcissism as a whole, is only ticking the boxes of "Yin" (the overt, dark, female, taking, destroying) and none of its opposites ("Yang"). Therefore a "whole" can never be achieved through these incomplete limited lenses that the immature mind that has no Buddhi can provide.
Likewise the entire idea of Alchemy seems to be a heresy of these older systems describing mere "interrelatedness of the elements", no magical spells, just a metaphorical help to, for example, understand that when one organ (ie lungs (metal)) being afflicted (water in them) indicates a weakness of another organ in the relation-cycle (heart (fire)) being too weak. Which is exactly what happens in conditions like heart inflammation. Treating the symptom of the water in the lungs is not enough, for the root cause of the symptom lies elsewhere, and the heart needs to be strengthened (ie by a pacemaker).
Laugh about TCM as you wish, for most of it is charlatanery nowadays, but the foundation is a mere product of observation and building a usable model. Western School Medicine as well has a great foundation, yet big pharma sells us a lot of placebos with only negative side effects to amortize their deadend research and keep the machine going. At its core, these things are eerily the same.
But what does the alchemist do with that old model? S/He anthropomorphizes, adds more magical thinking, lust for power, and thus believes to be able to truly manipulate and invoke the elements by themselves and cast magic. It's nonsense.
We also find connections all the way back to descriptions in the Sumerian Pantheon about these personality style interactions, but that's a topic for another time. I'll only mention that the symbolism in that ancient religion seems to have morphed through time and manifested in various religions and ideologies seen to this day, and considering which gods are represented by that is as telling, and congruent, with TIK's video here, as it gets. Suffice to say, it's all checking the boxes of "Yin".
Oh the irony and a tragedy. Kant’s homeland was eviscerated by cummies.
What a great deal of clarity you bring to political discourse. Thank you.
A few people have already noted the flaws in the way altruism is portrayed in this video. Having a desire to help other people does not stem from some form of self-hatred nor does it lead to it. That is possibly the most bizarre description I have ever heard and I gotta throw the BS flag. I don't think TIK is particularly religious but Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all require people to care for the less fortunate. That doesn't mean people of faith are by default self-loathing. The only religion I know that frowns on it are the Eastern faiths that believe in karma, that people are basically getting what they deserve for some past sin from a past life, and who are we to interfere with that?
Socialism is one of the least altruistic systems devised by man. People are left off the hook since it falls on the state to provide for the poor. That is the appeal and it's why modern-day cultural Marxists place such a high premium on victimhood. It's not that they have some intrinsic desire to help the less fortunate, it's all about will to power where the so-called marginalized groups have replaced the proletariat as the new grievance-centric base for popular support. If the hardcore lefties ever got the power they desire in the U.S. and other western nations they wouldn't give two damns about those marginalized groups. Hell, they would probably put them at the head of the list for the trains heading to the new camps.
I don't buy that argument at all that altruism is to blame for creating monsters. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro and on down the line, the one thing they all have in common is a rejection of God and a desire for a secular world where man is not held to any transcendent morality. A world where they set the rules, norms, and customs based on their own twisted desires, where justice and equity are arbitrary concepts based on what Rousseau called the general will, what they would call, what I want them to be. That is the essence of the end of history, the day when nothing that came before matters. The only thing that matters is today and what matters is left up to them, not some cultural belief system rooted in thousands of years of tradition. It's just what I say goes. It really is that simple, a pure desire for the acquisition and application of power, nothing more, nothing less. That's what drove very single one of those bastards.
The problem is that you seem to think 'altruism' = self sacrifice.
Let's think carefully about selfishness if it is condemned...why would anything be done? And why would no one condemn someone who just receives the help? They would be clearly selfish by asking for it since they need it while others might need more than then...
Main issue is that TIK, like you, have the 'positivist' view of 'altruism', which is only August Comte's take on 'altruism' (which is shit like Positivism as a whole, yet its ideas influenced all).
Here is what August's take was. "An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent."
Yeah, piece of stupid shit.
I guess your post would be best described as the faithless having a bone to pick with the faithful. The theme of Socialists having a religion-sized hole in themselves that they try and fail to fill. The notion of course being that man must and can only pick one master to serve, with most cases being: God or the State.
Altruism is evolutionarily beneficial and an instinct that exists in several mammals to help them survive not just humans so saying that it's toxic is just as delulu as saying greed is bad because you should never want material things. what TIK did was redefine the word. when he complains about altruism he's really complaining about the leftist hatred of fulfilled people and hatred of productive self-interest.
@@EnclaveApex The problem is that everyone here takes a secular description and tries to shoehorn it in Christianity. 'Altruism' as a word did not even exist before August Comte made it up to make his 'ethics' of sacrifice in which an action is only good if the agent is never benefitted from it.
There is a toxic altruism and not everyone who is religious adopts it, but it manifests when the positive virtue of charity is perverted into the self-effacing form that TIK is describing, which is the complete inverse of a work ethic. I think that's what TIK meant and if so I think he could have been clearer.
Don't beat your children. Even outside the communism thing just it's the right thing to not do.
Better yet don't neglect them.
If you want them to have dignity and will to live their life and having good families themselves later, better not to beat them.
One of the funny Maoism moment was when it claimed it could cure mental illness by claiming they were caused by "traitorous" class exploitation.
Fun fact.when stalin shoot him self and survived his father told him "you can't even aim right!"
This is so interesting! I have noticed that several people that I know who support the "new right" exactly fits the descripton of troubled upbringing and a lack of intrest of working since they see them selfe as moraly right and above the rest of socity
You'll note that the "extreme right" also support socialist top-down values. The left-right political spectrum isn't a line but a circle, with the extremes having similar totalitarian top-down collectivist ideals. Even if their own chosen group of "oppressed" people, and therefore the "oppressors" to be punished differ, the end result is much the same. A tyrannical gov't run exclusively by them.
@@NefariousKoel true
@@NefariousKoel Sounds totally right! Many people are confused thinking that National Socialism is far right. It's probably the biggest lie promulgated in modern political discourse.
As much as I love hearing people bash Marx, it was heartbreaking hearing how his family suffered because of him. The dude was truly a worthless POS, and it astounds me that THIS was the guy whose ideas affected half the world.
TIK is truly one of the gems of UA-cam. Thanks for all your hard work Sir!
Inre altruism, the problem with Objecivism as an antidote is that it is as extreme in the opposite direction. Objectivism holds that ANY self-sacrifice on one's part is bad, even of the mildest kind. Philosophical extremes are the problem with so much of what ails the world.
I noticed the same pattern. Thank you for digging into this. As always, good work! 👍
Uffda. Please don’t blame Lutheran doctrine on “altruism” and Lenin’s socialist ideology nor vice versa.
Protestantism is the reason behind atheism and the religion of equality.
I don't blame Lutheran doctrine. Some of the people on this like (e.g. Mao and Pol Pot) weren't Lutherans. It's just that the first four were.
@@TheImperatorKnight I think they rebelled against Lutheranism in particular because our faith does indeed put an emphasis on forgiveness and not seeking revenge on our enemies, a gigantic stumbling block to those with top-down plans for “humanity”.
I enjoy your work on exposing the Nazi ideology and the Marxist ideology being from the same Hegelian religion. Love the channel! 😎👍
Luther told Christians to listen to themselves and act according to their opinions.
consciences. But the tragedy of the [Protestant] Reformation is that it began as a
German revolution, but it ended in a battle over dogma, and Luther finally
linked conscience to Jewish teachings of the Bible
As a psychology student and a history buff I was waiting for this video for sooo long. Thank you TIK, it's time to get my snacks. :)
A little offtopic: I read that "modern" banking and capitalism was first established in Renaissance Italy, from where it spread over Europe and so forth. But there was no mentioning of any "Jewish" connection to that. The German Fugger family which became a synonym for private owned wealth had no Jewish roots either. The Fuggers gave loans to the medieval German Emperors. So I wonder: if commerce (in contrast to pure usury) was not lomited by law to Jews, how could anti-semitism and anti-capitalism merge in the way it did?
Because there were "money changers" in the temple at Jerusalem as the Bible describes. Usury is mentioned and railed against in even the Old Testament.
There was a VERY eye opening Jordan Peterson interview that was released a couple weeks ago where the guest discussed the blatantly satanic influence on Karl Marx. It certainly explains a lot.
It was the talk with Paul Kengor. I must’ve listened to that talk three times in great detail. If you revisit TIK’s talks (no pun intended) on Gnosticism, you might see the parallels between Gnosticism, occultism, Satanism, and dialectical thinking. They all seem to have a lot in common. Don’t forget to listen to New Discourses and search the same topics. It’s fascinating.
@@leonardticsay8046 James Lindsey's New Discourses videos are absolutely amazing.
Karl Marx's his prophecy was self destructive, which was his undoing I guess. I mean, he wasn't wrong so long as nobody publishes his ideas. Since his ideas are out there on ink and paper, indeed proletarians will read his ideas but the enemy, bourgeoisie, will also read his ideas and therefore come up with countermeasures. This is what leads to the other updated iterations of Marxism like Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism etc.
"blatantly satanic influence on Karl Marx"
lol, what a joke
@@tianwong152 Marx, like Lenin, despised and distanced himself from the “proletariat”. Intellectuals like those I mentioned, rarely (if ever) associated with “the workers”. To them, the working class were just pawns to use as instruments to gain power through perceived altruism.
Hegel has nothing to do with Socialism. He was absolutely pro work and independence, his philosophy was the development of Freedom and he was pro free market. He never said the real world is not real, and was against any mysticism and laziness. instead he promoted a protestant work ethic. Plato also had nothing to do with Epicurean laziness or any mysticism, but was quite utilitarian and pro spartan work ethic and pro independent thinking and acting! He was the western basis for all that actually. So it would good, not to associate and mix everything. The Socialist phenomenon as it was politically harmful, started with the Saint-Simonists and Marxist, not much before that. Also Schopenhauer promoted the negation of the Will, so a form of laziness and fear of independence. There, in the early and mid-19th century started this destructive tradition, this degeneration.
When building his vision for Socialism, Marx relies heavily on Hegelian Dialectics. So while Hegel might not be directly a Socialist, it is fair to say that his thought system inspired Socialism.
Furthermore, there are older Socialist traditions, which Marx used as the basis for his own "Scientific Socialism". You can see a lot of it in Russeau in the lead-up to the French Revolution, but the tradition goes back to centuries before - Utopia, back in the 1500, already grabs together many socialist arguments from the time, and the tradition goes back even further.
Of course, one could even argue that the origins of the concept of the socialist state goes back to Sparta itself - which would make Plato's admiration for Sparta a very telling point for his philosophy.
@@Sogeloquy There were some few socialist systems before Marx, but these were philosophically mostly rejected and historically not very important but outsiders or underdogs. Platos Republic was totally unimportant for the rest of history and his influence out of his whole philosophy where other parts like logics or morals were more important. Morus' Utopia the same. These were insofar important for creating a constitutional republic which is an organized state, but not more. Fichte's Socialism is forgotten. From Hegel the Marxists only take the negative (Antithesis) as a main principle to destroy everything (family, nation etc.), it has nothing to do with Hegel's real dialectics, it is quite the opposite, instead of synthesis, the Marxists see the world in total binary Extremes, split in black-white and thus want to return to a primitive "thesis", that is not synthetic and better but more simple, socialism with less freedom, less individuality. this tyranny is not a higher but a lower historical form for Hegel.
As far as the Socialism itsself it is not even the main problem in Marxism, but the binary oppressor-oppressed (anti-dialectical!) ideology which deems one collective as absolutely bad. in old (platonic) socialism there was never one group that was the bad and the enemy that had to be eradicated. But in Marx was only struggle and a primitive communism as the ideal. whereas in Plato there was not the struggle as principle but the good, the logical, which human reason was capable of, so he was not irrationalist. this is such a BS that classical liberal philosophers are named irrational here! then every philosophy is irrational! but capitalism is based on western philosophy and has not just naturally evolved out of nowhere! without it we would live in some tribal tyranny and fight with sticks and stones... It is not everything about "having a job, becoming a businessman or a lawyer" as TIKhistory says, because then why is he talking about history and is not doing a "real" "useful" job?? why philosophizing and not working in a factory or producing something others can live from?? but that's as materialist and primitive as Marx himself was.
Aristotle already saw that Plato's socialism was simply too rigid and more freedom was necessary. so with more freedom Plato's republic easily becomes a form of a Smithian night-watch state. If someone had explained to Plato/Socrates how capitalism logically works fine, he would have accepted it, because he was pro freedom of thoughts. Socrates was the prime example of the free market of thoughts as he challenged any idea. this Socratic competition spirit lead to liberal capitalism.
I also pointed out the work ethics that were also in Sparta (despite its rigid semi socialist system which didn't succeed), in Plato and in Hegel which also cannot be compared to Marxists' laziness mentality.
Also the aspect of Altruism is so wrong, Plato or Kant, Hegel have nothing to do with some extreme altruism or self hatred, on the contrary, they built the theoretical basis of the Self!
So this all is also a conspiracy theory that socialism is so old and has to be eradicated in history. but this thinking is not better than Marxism itself that wants to find an old enemy everywhere and eradicate.
The main problem in Marxism is not even the social aspect, not even the altruistic, which would be one extreme mentality for sure, but Marxism is also very egocentric and a narcissistic envy. the main problem is this weak, narcissistic Self - which TIkhistory pointed out correctly - and the hatred of the Other that follows, the hate against one imaginary collective enemy! this is the main problem in Marxism, that humans are seen as unfree and evil, potential oppressors and have to be oppressed in a "socialist" system and "helped" because they cannot really think and work by themselves. So finally it is just the old, primitive form of tyrannical Ideology to which philosophy in the form of Marxism has degenerated, that believes that only very few humans (or only one, the tyrant Stalin who does not trust anybody) are free and have to control the rest who are not free. This is the lowest, less developed form of freedom, that one only is free and the rest are slaves. Tyranny believed that only one (the tyrant) is free. Aristocracy believed that some are free. ancient democracy believed that half (the free citizens) are free and modern republic believes that all men are free. Marxism is just a degeneration to this oldest tyranny with all its decadence.
Fun fact, these points can be applied fictional characters such as Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader from Star Wars.
Born in a bad household (slavery, with no father and separated from his mother at a young age), raised in a religious household (the Jedi order) poor relationship with parents and teachers (Doesn't see mother in ten years and then she died in his arms, also a strained relationship with Obi-Wan and the council), self-hatred ("I'm not the Jedi I should be.") fear of independence (relies on unhealthy relationship with Palpatine and Padme Amidala.) Laziness ("How can you be on the Council and not be a master?") Hatred of reality and capitalism, ("I see through the lies of the Jedi! I do not fear the dark side as you do!")
Thank you very much for this very informative video! Keep them coming.
The irony here is that Rand ends up formulating a far more Biblical approach to morality than much of traditional Christianity while thinking that she's rebelling against it. She just does it with some abnormally-defined language, while many in the tradition are operating on a very fragmented view of the message.
When you actually look at what the Bible says it's very different than a lot of what passes for traditional Christianity. In fact the Bible warns about the spread of false teaching(Gnosticism). In Christianity yes, you are born with original sin, but you can be redeemed. In Communism/Socialism/ Woke Progressivism/Gnosticism if your a member of the out group there is no redemption.
Rand formulates ideology of selfishness, which is in its true form Satanism. Christ sacrificed himself to save the world, people like Rand would sacrifice everything for their own selfish goals. Irony of all of that is that they would die eventually, just like cancer killing its host and then itself.
@@chrishoff402 This is unfortunately the thing I worry most about TIK arguing that Christian altruism is the problem, ignoring clear cases where Christianity argues for both self-sacrifice and self-regard, one cannot love his family if one does not show love to himself, and that foremost requires a love for God. In Christianity morality, it believes nobody is worthy but that out of love for God is desires both of the self and those of others good means and ends, that neither is discounted, and thus righteous would be done. Many focus on one or the other, discounting the material and the self, others become extreme and disregard the spiritual and the other, but it is both the material and spiritual, both the self and the other that must be regarded. One cannot show love to another, to his church, or to himself unless he loves his family, that is why honor thy father and mother is so important and it is the first commandment of promise. (Ephesians 6:2)
Rand doesn't believe in objective morality and neither did any of these people in the video.
@@jsharp9735 Rand is a fierce proponent of objective morality.
The "backwards Russia during the Tsar" thing, is a socialist trope, one of many socialist tropes. And this trope made its way into western academia in the 1930s and 40s, where it was whitewashed and repeated ad nauseam. TIK of all people should have understood this.
The agricultural sector was in dire need of modernisation. Scythes? Really? How about a combine harvester?
Russia was backward in comparism to western Europe (Holland, Germany, UK, France). But it was not that backward as many people would like to believe. The main problem for Russia was the political backwardness, the lack of civic institutions and the lack of a larger middle-class.
indeed, Russia was poorer than the most developed countries of the time, like Britain and Germany, but it was rapidly growing, much more prosperous than any non-Western country, and was on a level comparable to that of Portugal or Spain in per capita. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the Soviet economic growth of 1930-s could not be surpassed by development in the market economy, which was going on in 1910-s without the GULAGs, Holodomor and the Great Terror. The economic disparity between Russian and Europe increased because of the socialism, not decreased.
@@johnevans347 Most countries were agricultural based in those days and used scythes.
@@xornxenophon3652 That's an example of a socialist trope. Russia had a regular middle-class and normal civic institutions. People who were poor, could work and climb up the ladder to a higher position. General Alexeev is such an example.
@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.
Please return the sentence "But is this really the case'. Your debunking/verifying theories is what's needed
WE GOT A 1 HOUR TIK VIDEO ON SOCIALISM AND IT ISN'T EVEN CHRISTMAS!!!
"You didn't build that!" - President Obama 2012
The individual is incapable of independent success. If he has accumulated prosperity it is not the fruits of his own productivity. Ergo his property and prosperity ought to be "shared" altruistically with those who are actually responsible.
That may be the case in a feudalistic, barter or slave economy. But in a market economy, the man earns wealth through the fruits of his own productivity, and uses that to EXCHANGE the fruits of labour from the other men in the market. Ergo, his property and prosperty are his own, and shouldn't be "shared" altruistically with slothful benefit scrounging preachers.
@@TheImperatorKnight Agreed, just pointing out a modern continuance of the ideology.
It may be helpful to contrast this with the concept of enlightened self interest that derives from Protestantism. A man solely responsible for his eternal soul and well being must be capable of looking after his present soul and well being. No priest, no king, no leviathan can provide this for him.
@@TheImperatorKnightThough that happens, only when the argument is a thought experiment existing in a vacuum, which is what you are doing, as no man exists in a vacuum and especially in market economy, succeeding requires forgetting moral goods like honesty and empathy in exchange for self-serving organization of ones surroundings to produce as much wealth to themselves while mostly ignoring the rest of the world.
However, this generally starts creating such a negative public opinion (by public, I mean all people outside of his immeidate circles), which is combatted by virtue signaling, generally in form of philanthropy, though which rarely fixes the damage the wealthy has done during his rise to the said wealth, and is mainly a propaganda trick to control the public opinion further.
Individual is incapable of independent success. Like it or not, for a success you need good upbringing, schools, security .. Otherwise your only success would be to become gang leader.
@@TheImperatorKnight Who was supporting you while you were going trough education in your life ? Who built all those schools ? Who built other infrastructure you were using ? Everything on your own ? 😁
Hey TIK! Great video as always.
I just had a quick question regarding religion. You've made a few videos in the past about Hitler's religion being Gnosticism, and here you often talk about Lutheranism (referring mostly about its focus on altruism), so you're making some videos that are a bit more focused on religion. So, my question is, and I totally understand if you would rather not answer it, do you lean more towards the side of the argument that says that God does exist or towards the side that he doesn't exist? It's just out of curiosity, since you cite sources often coming from Ayn Rand (herself and atheist).
"They fuck you up your mum and dad.
They might not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra just for you."
- Philip Larkin, This Be The Verse