Well, they're technically not denying it. They're just saying "we're something that's collectivist and not collectivist at the same time". It's a typical tactic that all Socialists do to deny what they are - which is the core concept. By denying what they are, it makes us look like we don't understand them. They can just deny whatever it is we say about them or their position, and therefore 'prove' how stupid we supposedly are for not knowing what they 'truly' are, even though we know precisely what they are, and they never give us any definitions or explanations. It's the strategy of an idiot.
It's like how all the covid crazies openly advocated for tyrannical policies, but simultaneously claimed it's actually not tyranny, because it's a good thing, and they like the good things, and you like the bad things.
@@TheImperatorKnight there is this youtuber The Golden one who reviewed Juvola's books since he's on the right or far right. So did Academic Agent and The Lotus Eaters (Sargon's podcast or whatever it is) although I haven't seen it.
Fascist Collectivism is not as extreme as Communism. In Germany National-Socialism was seen as less radical alternative to Communism, the Nazis didn't want the state to take away the "productive"(non-jewish) Capital or traditional family farms (against soviet-style collectivization of agriculture).
Given the IQ of the average neo-nazi it's remarkable they have a grasp on the meaning of collectivism at all because let's be honest for most of them their "right wing politics" boils down to "luv me wife, luv me country, luv beer. Ate gays, ate foreigners, ate fancy words." Telling them Mussolini was a syndicalist who created syndicalism on steroids and called it _Fascism_ blows their mind because they have no idea what syndicalism is, or fascism for that matter or who Mussolini is, or that the man despite his many flaws was probably less racist than Winston Churchill....
Tik you never fail to inform me! This is probably THE most compressive WW2 era UA-cam channel ever! Thank you for the hours of historical documentations!
It really can't be said enough, fascists and communists don't hate each other because they're so different, they hate each other because they're so similar, and both require total dominance of culture and power.
Yeah, no, it's because the commies want to destroy everything that is good, sacred and wholesome. In the words of someone else "they want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny."
THIS is why I'm a supporter. You have stumbled into the elephant in the room, and you have the skills to make it visible, both to those who are under its spell, and to others who deny its existence. I've vaguely known about the Gnostic problem for years, but I've not been able to work out how it's been made to work in the modern, largely secular world. This is utter genius, TIK. All power to your mega-zord! Or not. Please keep digging, but be careful. it's easy to end up seeing a Gnostic under every bush.
I've known about the Gnostic problem and it was driving me crazy all of these historical coincidences (I'm not a historian and was not actively searching for anything) that seemed non-random. I just didn't know anything about gnosticism or even its existence, but yes now I can see it everywhere. "Modernity has become the most successful Gnostic myth in history."
It’s very easy to ignore Evolva without confronting evolva in the post war years. Or looking up his French interview which is easily accessible on UA-cam where he says it (fascism) was basically a momentary political fad. His works on spiritual doctrine on Buddhism are interesting as they almost get close what typical adherents of the faith agree on but are confused as Evola unearths the hidden masculine orgins of Buddhism out of the modern trends. They will say though he’s off on how translates terms though, but his analysis is very interesting from an outsider perspective to them.
Evola was nothing but a whackjob with influential friends, pretty much like Dugin today. If you want to understand Mussolini look to Gabriele D’Annunzio instead. Modern "Fascists" don't like to do that because their current ideas have little to do with the ideas of the past if they aren't straight up running contrary to them.
Just yesterday I was looking for videos that looked more in depth into fascist economics, and TIK once again provides what I'm looking for. Cheers mate!
Finally, a tuber who got dialectics right in one line: thesis-antithesis-synthesis. It was even said in passing only, incidental. Glad I caught that though.
Is strange, after I discovered TIK, his videos help me to understand better my religion, as a Christian I was confront in many cases to negated coletivism and embrace individualism, but only after TIK Public vs Private I understand that, in some weird way, thank you TIK to make me a better christian and individualist person
@@fsa7703 why do we need a collective noun called God to say existence when we have the word existence already or other words, like nature, cosmos, universe, World, material word and non material world, soul etc. Those words seem so senseless and unuseful, because we have the collective noun God. 🙄
@@SchmulKrieger Because I am a Christian, and I believe in the personification of God in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. World, universe, cosmos... In my faith are creations of God, not God himself.
You, Academy of Ideas and James Lindsay are always on my watch list. I constantly rewatch videos from all three chanels as they seem to compliment eachother. Keep up the good work TIK. Much love from Brasil. Stay free!
I like Academy of Ideas - Aristotelian / Niezschean insights I think the Will to Power is misunderstood - could be called Will to Vitality but could not be called Will to Dominance
@@giovincomaz2175It is genocidal. Just not on the basis of race. I would consider Mussolini’s attempt to obliterate local Italian cultures and languages a form of soft genocide. Similar to Hitler’s destruction of local German cultures. If anything is against state unity, the fascist deems it necessary to destroy it.
Nazism & communism are totalitarian & partisan (favoring the ethno-linguistic Germanics or workers) The promotion of a partisan faction via totalitarian methods results in genocide Fascism does not shy from violence or murder, but they claim to represent the nation state and through it all citizens, so they do not have a designated enemy group to genocide
Humans derive meaning in the conquest of suffering. It actually makes sense based on how people act when they have all their needs met but no challenge to keep them occupied. They often go out of their way to needlessly create a challenge.
The fact that you're able to discuss and explain these ideas at all, let alone as objective as you're doing here, is a rare thing indeed and speaks volumes about you as a human being
Описание диалектики на этом канале абсолютно ложно. Никто и никогда с 19 века не понимал диалектику как отрицание истины и совмещение противоречащих тезисов. Диалектика это наука о развитии, а не об истине. Синтез не приносит истины, он просто создает новый тезис. Диалектика описывает реальность, а не идеал. Нет сомнений, что эта клевета умышленная. Никто и никогда не критиковал диалектику таким образом.
@@ФёдорМартыненко-ш1зit's weird watching him talk about the 3rd position's point of view in such a heavily religious way as well. The problems and solutions have never been considered "sacred secrets" as far as I've known. It's the purposeful suppression of the literal actual Truth (not God, objective truth about reality) that's caused so much confusion and it's why the author introduces it in the way he does
I used to call myself a fascist back in high school, not really knowing what it really was. Looking back, I saw it as a phase, but rather than going emo like some kids back then I just jumped on the fascist wagon instead. Then, as the years went on, the media started to make all these claims about how fascism is on the rise and such. Luckily, I was over my fascist phase but was confused as to what the media was claiming. It then led me to some UA-cam commentators claiming that the ideology was never right wing but rather left, which brought me to your channel. All I can say is thank you, Tik, for steering me away from fascism and other "ideologies." You actually show that they're nothing more than cults or religions that want to destroy the very nature of man.
How did you interpret Fascism if you didn’t know what it was? Attracted to power, or sense of identity? Education is very important in schools. Unfortunately, it’s indoctrination rather than information.
"But the devil’s goal is not only to present man with an egalitarian vision of the universe, but also a vision that destroys the very concept of being. He wants to implement a state of nothingness, to reabsorb creation into the primitive nothingness, which is gnosis." Haha... I just read this on another site 30 seconds before I read your comment
If I understood the last sentence correctly, these political ideologies want to subsume the very nature of man into their system of state worship. Everyone becomes a sacrificial lamb on call at the behest of the ruling collective.
@@ImperialKnight86I was the same as him. The only reason I embraced it was because it was unpopular. As a contrarian, I have to contradict everything popular you see.
One note on being in the Army. At no point do you cease being an individual. While the training, tactics, and doctrines REQUIRE teamwork, these do not require the destruction of the individual for the sole sake of the whole. While self discipline and "good order and discipline" on the unit level are important to all soldiers, the Army seeks constantly to promote, retrain for new roles, reward service with college benefits, etc. Why? Because every officer and NCO in the Army understands that service in the military is only one part of being a person and being a soldier does not define the PERSON as if every person is a one dimensional being defined only by what they do to get paid. So when they point to the military, they are displaying the same ignorance of that as they do with everything else. These belief systems are nothing but neck beard wet dreams in which their wholly inadequate intellects and capacities are magically in charge.
The army is all about self sacrifice for the group though. Dying for your brothers. Dying for your 'country'. Being forced to follow orders or else be reprimanded. The military will be the last vestige of the collectivist state.
Militaries classify some of their members as expendable. One of my duties for 16 hours a week was to stand on the outer perimeter as a soft target to be shot. The sound of gunshots was a signal for the inner perimeters to harden. My CO also had a loaded pistol in his locker to commit suicide if captured. Mission first.
If someone wants to know what modern fascism is nowadays you can look at Argentina. Perón was a fascist argentinian who was in fascist Italy and when he came back to Argentina he implemented the fascist policies that where there (some of them where a copypaste) and he even did things like helping national socialist scape there with "their" gold. What Argentina has right now is a openly modern form of peronism (and therefore fascism) wich is to no surprise very left leaning and still has those bases from fascism such as corporativism, syndicalism etc.... It can also be found in Spain with Sumar (a conglomerate of a few very left leaning parties) wich literaly means "to add" (as joining forces) wich is not only run by a politician who I would call a modern fascist (she is very, very close to it, she was the one who run the ministry of labour and in previous ages she was a key part of syndicalism wich she showed these previous years). This can be seen in that Podemos ("we can") not only is tied to the politics of Argentina and honor them but their economic program and policies are almost the same as the Falange, the clasical fascist party, in fact the lider of said party said that and that they could be able to understand each others because of that and get to an agreement. Even the name of the coalition resembles fascism, the fascio is a fascist symbol because it represents their beliving in collectivism and how if they join politically they can be strongly enough to encounter everything and that can be see in both their coalition and their name wich again can be interpreted as to join, as a sum of it. The same way comunism evolved and left nationalism behind in some of their modern forms and joined few collectivistics ideologuies/sects known for most as "wokeness" (or whatever you wanna call it, femisim, anti racism, pro lgtb etc...) so did fascism in a similar fashion
Pensé que era el unico argentino acá jajajajaj gracias por decir lo que todos los argentinos estamos pensando. Estaría bueno que Tik haga un video sobre Perón si algún día tiene la paciencia para leer sobre tan inmundo ser.
@@JuanIgnacioRiveroMaciel en realidad soy español, tan solo se algo sobre lo que ocurrió allá. And yeah, a look there would be great plus some other topics but I don't think my petitions can reach him and I don't know if he would listen to us in that sense
For a country like Argentina (mixed-race society, large inequality in abilities) ... some kind of populist fascism is the best system. It would give large masses some bread and circus, while ensuring stability for more gifted parts of society.
“Strength in Numbers” refers to the same concept I believe you mentioned in your Hitler’s Socialism video. The individual sacrificing his or her individuality to be part of the group, the collective, to achieve socialist goals. I can’t remember if you gave it a name or simply described it.
You hit a point that everyone else misses: fascists are not materialists. They are spiritualists who desire spiritual strength, moral hierarchy, and a triumph over external threats. You refer to them as a cult but there are merely the other side of the mind/body dichotemy.
Book tip: The Occult Roots of Nazism: The Ariosophists of Austria and Germany, 1890-1935 Author Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke wrote a PhD thesis on this subject.
@@lollypop333100 Partialy the zeitgeist of the time, partialy the huge mix of ethnicities, languages, religions etc. that were the staple of Austria/Hungary/(Balkans). Germany was more unified but the rule of the aristocratic/burgois elite was also a huge burden on the farmers workers and plebs, so it is not supprising that a lot of people were looking for an political/gnostic explanation/alternative.
Random question...did Rockefeller have any influence? I think he was into new ageianism and eugenics. I just got a book on him, but haven't read it yet. All of these ideas and beliefs seem to surround Blavatsky some way.
It is possible to cooperate and compete with someone at the same time, because there can be varying intensities of conflict. You can compete with other members of the same athletic team to see who can score the most points, while still striving more stringently to defeat the opposing team. It is possible to survive, even beyond death, without reproducing, by contributing something else to humanity, or whatever subgroup one favors, such as creative productivity, military service, etc. Dogs and cats may not compete for mates, but they do compete for food very often; arguably an even more important component of survival overall. I agree with most of what you say, but these flaws are significant and should be addressed.
I'm glad to see this brought up. He seems to have an oversimplified or outdated understanding of the theory of evolution. The Selfish Gene is probably a good start but maybe I'm out of the loop as well.
This isn't terrible coverage of the issue but I do take umbrage with some of the ideological tone your more recent videos have taken. For instance, you claim that one can only ever be an individual or a member of a group collective, and this is steadfastly false. Even within a group collective there are competitive individuals, individuals which are more or less loyal to the group depending on the circumstances, etc. In the military, there are individuals giving orders and taking orders not necessarily out of faith for the cause but because if that chain of command were to break down, they'd be routed, killed, or imprisoned in POW camps. It's an individual choice to belong to a collective, or to create a collective from whole cloth to achieve goals which cannot be achieved individually. As an individual in a group, depending on your role, you have no choice but to submit yourself to some of the whims of the overall group. This is the case right down to the nuclear family, the former smallest unit of civil society. Additionally, it absolutely is the case that society and biology are rife with contradictions. There is no such thing as any organically existing thing which does not live in a state of balance between competing forces, nor is there any school of thought which is entirely logically consistent AND accurately reflects the state of reality. The world we live in today is so interwoven and the organizations we are subjected to are so massive that it's impossible for there not to be contradictions in its functioning. And yet, despite that tension, and despite the many moments in which certain tensions break, it is still ultimately functional -- more functional than any system which has existed before. This isn't to say that contradiction is or should be the goal, but that managing those contradictions works pretty well for the time being, even if there are innocents caught in the crossfire when certain battles flare up. I'm not saying this out of love for any particular regime or any ideological commitment to or against liberalism, but when you look around, things are far more stable than they used to be. It wasn't so long ago that people in so-called developed countries regularly starved to death; today that's practically unheard of, and it was the combination of statecraft and adherence to objective economic principles that made that possible. Regarding the nakedly ideological stances you take: I don't care much, I recognize everyone interested in these highly granular discussions is coming at it from their own perspective or through the lens of critics they admire, but the harping on how the state is ultimately the root of all theft and violence and inflation and class warfare is incredibly simplistic. "Taxation is theft" is a moral claim, not an objective one, and it collapses the role of the state throughout all of recorded history (indeed, without the development of the state, there'd be no history to speak of) into a cartoon villain not unlike the caricature of capitalists adopted by Marxists or of Jews adopted by Nazis. Your points would be better supported if you viewed these developments as organic outcomes to human civilizational development based upon the pressures of the time in which they occurred, rather than as a perennial war on all by the only organizations with monopolies on the use of violence. That monopoly is fundamentally necessary in order to secure the markets you speak so fondly of. At the same time, you often argue we've never had capitalism or "true" free markets; what does that tell you about your political orientation? To me it reads as just as utopian as the communism foretold by Marxists, a world that has never existed because it can never exist. Taking for instance natural free-floating prices: the nominal price of goods can never accurately reflect the actual value of those goods because there is always a delay in or absence of information which would affect its price. Price has to be struck somewhere at some point to maximize profits (either from the good itself or from other goods sold by the same firm), but without perfect real-time surveillance of the entire economy at once, prices will always be an imperfect indicator for the state of the economy because they will always be slightly out of step with the real value of goods. This isn't to say it's a worthless metric, obviously not, nor is this to say that price caps and subsidies don't have distortionary effects on the rest of the economy in which they are imposed, but it is to say that pricing itself is merely representational, much like virtually any other economic phenomena we've given a name to. I felt the same way when you mentioned GDP being a worthless fake indicator; it's imperfect and can be gamed, sure, but so can everything else. Markets generally tend towards consolidation anyway, in search of those more perfect price surveillance and profit maximization capabilities, and where they don't, it's the state that breaks them up so as to limit the power that monopolistic firms/cartels have (and to entrench the state's role in managing the economy). GDP is still as much an indicator of economic health as nominal prices are, since all these values constantly change depending on 1. what's actually happening in the economy, 2. who's reporting these figures, and 3. how they're choosing to report them and for what reason. Again, proof of contradiction in large dynamic systems, proof of individual actors coalescing into groups, proof of markets and the state being intimately linked, each requiring the other in order to function at all. In general I like your videos, I find your willingness to tackle such controversial subjects admirable, and I wish your channel success but I did feel compelled to mention some of my good-faith criticisms.
Additionally: I take great umbrage with the tactic of yourself and other liberals like James Lindsay who claim that all of these ideologies which are opposed to liberalism are merely remnants of a gnostic religious tradition. You can certainly make that argument, but it has flimsy backing. It's obfuscatory at best. The stated goals of these movements often do not match their actions (as is the case with any ideologue) but there is no secret gnosticism behind it all. They may be utopian, they may have ardent faith in principles which do not comport well with reality, but that doesn't mean they're all branches of the same gnostic religious tradition, especially not when they come to such heavy blows with each other on a scale similar to World War II. Liberalism also fought hard during that war and ultimately won. Many of the neo-fascist or communistic movements popping up today do share a through-line with each other but it's often not in the text they're reading or the solutions they're seeking; it's within the behavioral and social dynamics of the internet, and their adoption of radical utopian positions emerges from the type of discourse they're engaged in. Ordinary liberals do this too, whether they be right- or left-leaning. This phenomenon is not specific to the internet but the internet does exacerbate it. Rather than trying to lump all of these various radicals under one umbrella of "gnostic" and calling it a day, and doing so almost exclusively by nitpicking their stated arguments solely from that critical lens, it might be best to zoom out of what they say they believe in and analyze how these movements came about. What was the context in which they emerged? What kind of people belong to them? How are they similar? How are they different? What is the basis for their decision to organize? What type of actions are they engaged in (if any)? Is there a specific psychological profile to the leadership vs. the members? What does the structure of their organization look like? These questions are far more revelatory than the manifestos alone, and should only be taken in tandem with their stated ideological convictions, never separately. I think your older video comparing Mosley, Mussolini, and Hitler did a much better job of this, and was much more careful in highlighting the differences between the three. Now, I think in attempting to foment critique of these movements, you've adopted an ideological lens yourself which limits your capacity to do so. This is similar to myself when I was highly critical of what I saw as fascist influence in my online circles and I came around to left-wing theory. Then in critiquing leftists, I nearly circles back around before I backed out of any ideological commitment completely and just started reading for the sake of understanding the impacts left by all of these towering movements, thinkers, and empires which have risen and fallen. You appear to have done so while adopting libertarianism as your critical method, which has turned into an unspoken positive project of sorts. Again, that's fine, I have no real personal issue with libertarians (or fascists or communists or liberals or whoever else), but I think it would do your channel well to maybe break away from that (and perhaps even begin a robust critique of it?) for the intellectual exercise that it is.
HIs ideological "we are all individuals" and "there's no such thing as race" spiel reminds me a lot of Thatcher with her "there is no such thing as society" line. Yes I am an individual within my family but I still try to further the interests of my family, then my community, kin and so on. That's how we can best pass on our genes and everyone should want there to be more people like them in the future. Yes I am in some competition with other members of my ethnic group but at the end of the day if they win they're still passing on more similar genes to myself than a member of another group.
Very well said, I do not understand how he gets so much praise, in my opinion this is just one big strawman argument, and he is trying to cram as much things as he doesn't like into the gnostic cultism theory. I think his biggest mistake is taking what is said by some individuals verbatim, instead of analyzing what they did, Stalin could have a secret diary where he said he loves capitalism and hates marx and whatnot, but it would be stupid to analyze this as his ideology when it clearly is not. I don't mind him being against any ideology, but he clearly has a huge bias which he never addresses, nor does he ever explain things he claims as facts that are just his opinion. I just wish he analyzed it from a historical perspective, with multiple sources, analyzed what happend, rather than just making hitler is actually the same as stalin and basically communism is evil part 27
@@andrija3000 I agree. I do actually like that he positions Hitler and Stalin as similar based on the actual arguments and actions they took in part because I do believe there is ample evidence to suggest Marxist influence on the development of both Bolshevism and National Socialism (and in all honesty I think Hitler was closer to Marx in spirit than Stalin, despite the disavowals) but he treats them both as boogeymen who were simply ideologically opposed to perfect free markets which by his own admission have never existed. In truth his content did used to be much more historicist in outlook but that time has clearly passed. As for the praise he gets, I do understand this. Any content taking any sort of position on anything is going to attract people who view the world similarly, especially if as granularly dissected as he does it. I understand exactly where the commenters from Eastern European countries come from given my family are from former Warsaw Pact countries. What he says about those places and times isn't strictly wrong but even true things can validate biases. Something as simple as citing a source can fool a lot of people even if the citation isn't used for much else but rhetorical dunking.
It appears that you are conflating a voluntary co-operative collective of individuals with collectivism (which is imposed, involuntary). A group of people voluntarily deciding to work together for common cause (like some mates deciding to make a computer game, and sell it for profit), and while it could be called a collective, is most definitely not the same as a demand to place the collective above oneself based on some perceived common innate factor, like nationality, race, sex, class, religion, etc. The difference is, as always, the element of coercion.
Thank you. As Israeli you helped me to understand the path my government leads. It is a kind of mix of Religious and Socialism. I can see the hypocrisy of their statements.
@@rostdreadnorramus4936not irony but the eye opener for why they were expelled and persecuted in the first place. Why did every single European country come to same conclusion. If it was just one person or one country it would make sense but how can everyone be wrong at the same time? And how can everyone come to exact same conclusion about them?
These subjects are very heavily tangled up and in my mind becomes a big knot with me not being able to untangle but you do it perfectly TIK. You're like that parent who simplifies everything and then teaches you how to do yourself, making me feel like I'm growing up. I was always tripping over myself and now I feel like I can walk without tripping over myself, plus didn't know how esoteric these philosophies whereby a distorted faith is lying behind them. Thank you TIK.
Your gnostic hypothesis seems a pretty rich vein. Religious aspects of collectivism have been manifest at least since 20 Prairial Year II and Herbert’s Cult of Reason. The same tendencies have surfaced in every socialist movement, and socialist state over the years. Your ideas here make a real contribution to understanding the common character of socialism in all its various forms. Really great work!
I really like the research you do on modern day 3rd positionism, it brings it to light and shows how it has evolved over time under the radar. Great video as always.
Tik, as far as I understand Julius Evola was neither a fascist or a national socialist; in fact, he criticized both ideologies fervently. His book, “Fascism Viewed From The Right”, is composed entirely of his problems with Italian Fascism from the point of view of a reactionary traditionalist. I don’t think Evola ever tried to blend Fascism and National Socialism into one as he disliked both of them; National Socialism even more so. I think it would be beneficial to read both “Revolt Against The Modern World” and “Fascism Viewed From The Right” to get a better understanding of Evola’s ideas.
@@doronaznible7298 He was the Italian Himmler, in terms of finding a way to communicate (or unify as Tik says) the two ideologies for political purposes. @OP: I also distrust Evola's reflective criticism of his erstwhile ideological bedfellow in Fascism Viewed From The Right. It reads as a covering of ones tracks to compensate from the failure of the ideology (one he actively participated in and I believe, had faith in) for credibility purposes. In the end it's all academic though. Evola's ideas are just another dead end.
@@ThyCorylusNo he wasn’t. He was never a member of the fascist party, and his works were actively censored by the Italian government. He even had to escape from the SS as they viewed him as dangerous and subversive. And no. He never once tried to combine fascism and Nazism together. If you look at fascism and Evola, you’ll realise the man had very little in common with it. Evola was an aristocrat that despised fascism and Nazism’s insistence on socialist economics, nationalism and obsession with a mono cultural state.
Thank you TIK for you continuing work and sorting of information about political-economic-religious ideological doctrine. It helps to explain the structural organization parallel from Stanislav Andreski's 'Military Organization & Society'. Edit: my thought years ago was why totalitarianism was painted in terms of classic Left and Right, where these are societies that require high levels of collectivization/participation (high Military Participation Rate) to maintain high levels of stratification/hierarchy.
@@SchmulKrieger mises takes care to describe a prioristic praxeological categories relating to the reality of human nature, and the nature of the world as it presents themselves to us. This is in no way invalidated by the empirical observation that some people don't realize this, and that some make use of that ignorance to control their fellow man. If you cannot see that, you should keep your illconceived remarks to yourself. I'm am industrial electrician, how do i understand this better than yiu do?
@@UmaROMC and leaves out that human nature is to gang up, built huge tribes, nations whatever. He simply fails human nature, because his is only an abstraction, a God in his texts.
Marx's labor theory of value places all commodities on a single scale of value and thus creates zero-sum thinking Exchanges are more for less (exploitative) or equal for equal (pointless) rather than A for B (mutually beneficial) This zero-sum thinking turns everything into a power struggle instead of cooperation in pursuit of mutual flourishing Applied to race, sex, etc you get woke
Words are inadequate to convey my gratitude for all you have taught us. This lecture is an excellent object lesson and draws beautifully on your previous lectures. The clarity is remarkable and life changing. Many thanks again.
Also, for those who believe central planning and direction are viable strategies, it came to light after the Soviet Union collapsed that their economy was roughly 5-10% the size of the US's. That being said, the ministry in charge of price controls had to keep track of 30-40 million prices. At a TENTH of our economy! I can't fathom trying to keep track of 300 million prices, if not vastly more today (2024). The fact that collectivists assume they are capable of doing this is a great display of their narcissism
All this supernatural talk the Fascists speak of brings to my mind the Nazis from Indiana Jones doing witchcraft around the Ark of the Covenant and getting their faces melted off by spirits.
You said Evola was a nut job but I haven't found any medical evidence supporting this claim. Can you elaborate? You also said that you can't be an individual and a group at the same time but is this really true? My family is a group. My project at my work is also a group. Why can't I have individualistic strives while being in that group? Why can't I have duties to my family while also having personal dreams? Individualism doesn't really exist since we live in a society. Your argument for cats and dogs was also kinda bad, since humans are the same species and different races can interbreed with each other unlike cats and dogs.
"Youre either a collectivist or an individualist" Have you ever heard of a community? You can be an individual within a community and still work towards common goals as a community.
Communities are made up of individuals, only individuals can determine what a common goal is, and if they work towards them. Thus individualism. There is no collectivism there what so ever.
Collectivism and individualism are a way of analysing politics, not a rule in your behaviour towards others. "Individualist" does not mean "anti-social", it just means that you consider the individual the most important actor in politics and in general. "Collectivists" see groups as entities in their own right, while individuals are merely cells working in tandem, which individualists do not adhere to. An individualist would say "A group is a bunch of individuals working for a shared goal" while with collectivists it is more that an individual is someone who is a part of a group working for a certain goal.
Hi Tik love your videos! If you are concerned about the third positionists channel from being taken down, you can download and archive the videos. Thus if it is taken down, you still have all the material to work with and reference. Another brilliant video Tik, keep up the good work! Have you done any work on looking at Pol Pots Cambodia and their brand of ideology ? I think it would be a very interesting thing for you to cover. Once again, brilliant video and keep up the god tier level work!
Yeah I have been recording his videos and taking notes, but I haven't done them all. I did read a book on Pol Pot's Cambodia when I was in college, but I haven't done any deep work on it. It is something I'll cover at some point, but I think Stalin might be something I should cover first once I've done more videos on Marxism in general.
If there's any one person that needs to get on the Joe rogan podcast I think you're probably the guy. There's a ton of people that know somethings not right but don't know what and how to define it, but understanding this cultist gnostic ideology really helps to explain everything and highlights the seriousness of the situation we're in. I would suggest there's a high probability this will end disastrously. We essentially have a ruling class of radical cultists in charge of the world's nuclear stockpile and financial system
The thing is there is a thing called group selection in natural selection. It is when different organisms compete one a collective. Aka think tribe 1 which are all more closer related to eachother than tribe 2. Hence if you are a member of tribe 1 the victory of tribe 1 over 2 means you win as your genes get spread further through the other in the tribe.
Natural selection operates on the level of the gene, not the individual or the group So I can "profitably" sacrifice my personal interests for my family much more than for my tribe and still more than I can for my race See Dawkins' The Selfish Gene for more
Survival of the fittest within the "race" can just mean that the best within the race are having more children, thus keeping the "race" strong. So it's not necessarily a contradiction.
‘Best’ and ‘fittest’ aren’t at all the same thing. You’re putting the ‘cart before the horse’ by saying “the best…have more children”. Specimens are fittest because they produce more offspring. They’re not fit to reproduce, they’re fit because they reproduce.
Love your philosophical economical political vids👍. One detail: marxists defined socialism as 90% of means of production is owned by "people", meaning state. The remaining 10% were the small hill farms impossible to colectivise. And btw, everytime some of these ideologies mention "struggle" it is invariably excuse and justification to terrorise people they don't like
I'm not sure if calling Evola a fascist is apropriate. He was a complicated guy with views really alien to our modern sensibilieties. He initially was interested in fascism and national socialism but neither Mussolini nor Hitler live up to his standard. Both NSDAP and italian fascist party were too open to the people for his taste. Instead of purging themselves and forming an intellectual elite they allowed basicaly everyone in. What he envisioned was not a party political party but sort of neo-feudal warrior-priest class ruling over the plebs. Such social order in his view would not require a totalitarian state as it did in both germany and italy because a person cofined to a role of a peasant/craftsman/whatever would enjoy the certainty strict hierarchical order brings. It's also important to note that Evola was not a Hegelian. Dialectic assumes that there is an end point of history we should struggle (see what i did there lol) towards. Evola viewed history as an infinite series of degenerative cycles. You start at the highest point (spiritually speaking) and slowly go down the ladder until the civilisation collapses and on it's ashes arises new civilisation with its own golden age which will also degenerate collapse and start the cycle again and again and again. It's a completely different beast than whatever Gentile, Marx or whoever thought up.
@@ZoranZoltanous That's interesting. Someone told me that Gentile was a Hegelian thinker and i just assumed it to be true. Seems that i got to go back to the books. Does "Origins and doctrine of fascism" reveal his views or should I read something else?
@@mk-tu3gv he’s definitely influenced by Hegel but he doesn’t agree with everything from Hegel. Origins and doctrine is more of an outline. If you’re going to understand him, I recommend the book thought, thinking, which basically summarizes his entire philosophy and has a bunch of his obscure essays inside of it.
The problem is with this publication is it’s not very good and it’s mostly just propaganda. I would recommend checking out my introduction to corporatism I wrote instead. It’s far more concrete in it’s argumentation. The biggest issue with iron march publications is they try to avoid being bogged down to a position and really only appeal to the nation/state to justify complete total pragmatism which is just nonsense.
In 1984 Orwell eloquently presents all the hellish ideologies of the 3 "hyperpowers" as pretty similar based on his observation of the USSR and Nazi Germany. Enough said...
@@TheImperatorKnight you're reaching more mate, and I use your videos as sources, I've managed to teach a few people the diffeences between the ideologies, and you are onto something strong with the Gnostic hypothesis. just wanna thank you for teaching me some stuff, and helping me teach others.
"democratic" This one is important - socdems and progressives share the same principles as the radical socialists and will reach the same outcomes given enough time and power
no theyre not - youre just ignorant -are you that way cause you believe this shill or purposely not learn nothing about covid19 was socialist if you double down youre a moron
It seems all these Statist/Collectivist ideas assume their ideal State knows what's better for you than you do. Don't ask questions. Submit. Comply. Obey.
This all, I think, provides a valuable backdrop to the political tensions of our day (2020's), as much of the ideological struggle of the first half of the 20th century seems to be repeating to some degree.
From his first video on this subject: " since the 1800s the West has been dominated by three groups. There’s the Christian Churches, the intellectuals who believe in science, and then a third group of occultists. These three groups have all been fighting against each other, in spirit if not physically, and that these occultists are part of this ancient religion. " It makes perfect sense
@@sdrc92126 That is nonsense. I am a Christian, and I am an intellectual, and I know people who are this and occultists too, so someone can be all three at the same time. Your categorization is false.
22:00 In my experience, the lack of empathy that narcissists and psychopaths show, with their lacking, or very artificial crutch attempt at a theory of mind, manifests as an ability to imagine that other people could think differently from yourself, thus could have different personalities. In their limited minds everyone operates the same as them - which also explains and "justifies" why they project so much, why they accuse you of their crimes and their own vices, for those are the ones they can comprehend, and you must be guilty of them too, because they themselves are guilty of them and certainly haven't overcome them, and thus you couldn't either. In short, this is why this guy you cover here believes that individualism is fake, that in an Individualist Society everyone would just be replaceable clones, and only in a collectivist society where the State tells you what to do, you become individualistic through the differences the state decrees/blesses on to you. These people believe differences (individualism) comes from external sources, not from the inside - There's simply not much development on the inside of a narcissistic personality disorder, so I suppose that could thus be a logical conclusion from the point of view of the narcissist. It also explains the obsession with the State looming over you and taking care of you and telling you what exactly to do: It is the replacement for the oedipal parent that never stopped doing exactly that and thereby stunted the emotional/cognitive development of the now narcissist. The prior replacement for that overbearing parent would have been the Church. If we accept Socialism is just a religion, then the latter remains true regardless, as it is merely "some church of some religion" trying to take complete State Power.
I disagree on one thing. There can be individualism and collectivism at the same. Its just a matter of priorities and circumstances. if the threat is greater within a group then individualism is more prominent or if the threat is greater outside the group then collectivism is more prominent. but both are still present at the same time just at different levels.
Everytime you quoted the book, all I could hear was "Submit to the state. Submit to the nation. Sumbit to society. Submit to more important interests that transcend you." Tell me again why people believe that Marxism and Fascism are radically different? Why are there people that think that Fascism is like "Ultra Capitalism"? Why do they think that Marx and Hitler are opposites?
Because the analysis is desperately inaccurate. Collectivism is the leverage to power. Beyond that, it's potluck what they purport to believe. The nation state is only a framework for mass political power. The national economy is a framework to leverage control over mass resources. After that, it's pick your poison on how it is ordered: race, nation, state, religion, hierarchy, economy. Individuality is sacrificed to Order. They are all claims to legitimacy. But, in civilisation Individuals need to cooperate to get by, and thus, how we cooperate with each other should really defined from the granular level of the individual. But, will it ever be so? No. Somebody will always try to impose their vision of order won't they? Lol.
Marxists uses totalitarian methods to promote the weak (proles), leading to genocide of the strong (kulaks). National socialism uses totalitarian methods to promote the strong (the Germanic ethno-linguistic "nation") leading to genocide of the weak (JQ) Fascism uses totalitarian methods to promote the nation state itself, and implicitly all citizens So Nazism and Marxism are opposites once you have accepted totalitarian socialism as the status quo (rejecting liberalism and feudalism) Both despise fascism for protecting the enemy class In my view fascism will inevitably fail because it's a totalitarian socialist project, but it's likely to lead to much less death than Marxist communism or national socialism
because they are - but of course you wouldnt know that if you believed this shill Marxism is a different ideology than National Socialism Heres the best video on Marx and socialism and its nothing like hitler ua-cam.com/video/rRXvQuE9xO4/v-deo.html
Hitler and Marx is a bad example due to them both being communist (Hitler former). As a third positionist, I would be more to the “right” then Hitler due to him having a Marxist background.
Has fascism and/or national socialism evolved over time? - It became social justice? Also, I think the terms liberal and socialists are as misused by people on the right as fascist and conservatives are by people on the extreme left. A liberal is not a socialist and vice versa. That seems to be a pollution of terms brought about from America.
Socialists tend to lie about what they genuinely believe, depending on the audience. They'll often pretend to be liberal when they're in a more moderate setting, to hide how far left they actually are. That's where a lot of the confusion comes from. It's also why they think everyone right of center is a secret fascist, they're projecting. They think because they lie about how extreme their views are, everyone else must be lying too, and they're on the opposite extreme.
It has evolved and is a Cluster fuck like leftism but im not sure if it can be seen as social justice but it became a kind of non racist racism or anti racism racism ( exept the skin Heads , they are insane). I did a few deep dives about that
Socialism is giving up property for the collective. Fascism is giving up your rights, soul, AND property to the collective. And the point of forgetting history is to repeat it. The left forgot what communists and fascists belive... so they're free to repeat the mistakes of the past. Social Justice is that movement.
I thought they were "free marketers" when it came to trade on small to medium(medium-large) scale, but when dealing with large industry, requiring huge levels of funding, large corporations (with an incentive to monopolise) would be replaced/run by workers unions of the state. The idea being to protect the nation from foreign interests groups, and also to prevent rival powers to the state within the private sector. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Hi, TIK! I'm always impressed when you continue to go deeper into Fascism (and its related ideologies) and discuss different aspects of it. In this video you mentioned Christianity several times, and that makes me curious. Have you considered or would you consider making a video analyzing Pope Leo XIII's 1891 papal encyclical Rerum Novarum? It was published as a response to and critique of both Socialism and Capitalism, and I would be interested in your take on it. I know it's outside your normal field, but it's related so I figure it's at least worth a shot to ask. Keep up the good work, man!
@@militarytheorist9674 I even used to get him in my feed. LOL. I know why the algorithm picked that. I'd say that there is a split in those circles, as huge share giggles while talking spiritualism, while accepts awkward conclusions of theory of evolution...
The part about what is free market at 25:30-ish is something you REALLY need to make a video about. What I mean is do a glossary video. Even though I've been a long term viewer and have read (and in the process of reading) some really good economic books till now I couldn't put what free market is in such simple down to earth words.
Imagine that when I met Jeffrey Tucker (former editor of Mises Institute website) and we started talking away from prying ears of younger libertarians, discussing Carl Schmitt and what not, he suddenly came up with Julius Evola and immediately lit up when I replied I knew that figure. He seemed really content that I summed up Evola's thought as basically "crank". God knows how much fascination he used to have for the perverse baron...
22:56 I'm afraid I'll need to disagree. Did Khrushchev not bring material prosperity to the citizens of the USSR? Does this make Khrushchev a fake communist?
“By the 1980s it was an open secret that the 2 percent of Soviet farmland that was privately owned was producing 30 percent of Russia’s agricultural output.” - Woods, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History," Kindle p162. This is what Communism does to the economy - it destroys it. And I have a video explaining the Soviet economy where I come to some surprising conclusions ua-cam.com/video/kPVo9w79D6w/v-deo.html
But rather than concentrating on more efficient methods of cultivating, fertilizing, and mechanically harvesting corn, Soviet agricultural authorities continued to expand corn acreage to areas lacking in appropriate climatic conditions and sufficient labor supplies. By 1960 total acreage had increased to 28 million hectares and reached 37 million by 1962. The latter year, cool and rainy in the spring and early summer throughout European Russia, proved disastrous for corn. Some 70 to 80 per cent of the acreage planted died. Even in southern regions, where grain corn harvests rose from four million tons in 1953 to 14 million in 1964, yields remained low and labor inputs averaged three times higher than inputs for wheat. What made matters worse was that all the while, hay production had declined throughout the country, from 64 million tons in 1953 to 47 million in 1965. Collective farmers’ suspicions of corn as an “alien” crop were vindicated, but not before a great deal of damage had been done to Soviet agriculture and Khrushchev’s reputation as a wise leader.
One element that seemed to get skimmed over was the hierarchy...IE "THE LEADER" or whoever that guides and uses the organic body for the greater purpose! So in simple terms everyone in society submits to "ME"
From what the Austrian painter says in his book, he seems to be in favor of some sort of king-like figure. Sort of in charge but not, a member of the volk but also something to do with God. Makes no sense to me, but maybe it meant something to him.
A divine spark is somehow trapped in some (but not all) humans and it alone, of all that exists in this material world, is capable of redemption. --from 'The gist of what gnostics believe'
Limited liability Under a partnership or historical joint-stock company the partners or company directors are liable for the debts of the business to the limits of their personal fortune The corporate structure becomes a fictional entity that holds its own liability - the human beings involved are not held to ordinary common law liability Note this applies to both LLCs and normal corporations
Hi Tik. Nice banger of a video last week. I own quite a bit of the books you recommended. If you do look at Barbarossa at a later date, David Stahel is someone to keep an eye out for. Cheers from the States.
Hey Vass, how's things? I've got a couple of Stahel's books on Moscow and Barbarossa, and can confirm he's good. I do feel bad because, thanks to me, people keep saying they've got a load of books to read and not enough time to read them :D
@@TheImperatorKnight Been well. Working and reading, same as always. Been slogging through Alex Hill’s “Red Army in WWII,” and some stuff on Braddocks Defeat. How are you?
Oh good! Hill's book is good. I've been working on Stalingrad (no surprise), but today I did some reading on the Battle of Gazala in preparation for post-Stalingrad. It was a very welcome change from the Eastern Front and I can't wait for Stalingrad to be done with now
@@TheImperatorKnight That be cool. I know Stalingrad has been bogging you down. That be a nice change of pace. For what it’s worth, you’ve done a bang up job with Stalingrad.
TIK. I appreciate what you have created. As a historian, it is great to see these topics being tackled. I have used these videos to help explain these ideologies to my kids. Keep up the good work.
I'm glad i waited till i had the time to sit through all of this. Well worth the wait. As for fasc-anon i dont see how it could possibly work in an official group setting. the amount of gatekeeping required would make it unworkable. Something like a self help workbook might work, where you answers a number of questions as journal prompts, and the, re-read what you've written to see if you believe it or if it makes sense.
I hope you're able to one day put this whole gnosticism & national socialism topic together in book form. It would be one of the greatest academic resources on fascism and national socialism that anyone's ever put together. And it should be mandatory reading in public school, if we're going to keep clinging to those
I think ”struggle“ is not a correct translation of *Kampf* . Or at least not always. Kampf also means fight and I think *Kampf* is meant way more actively, while struggle is more passively, so it is more like straucheln, where you can put a *Kampf* upon it to end the struggle. Like class struggle is not always meant to be *Klassenkampf* , it is a struggle and an active role played by politicians corrupted by greed and money that set up policies to put the conditions upon the lower classes which resultatively begin to struggle. With endeavour, they say - the bourgeoisie - you can climb the ladder and become one of them, and Anarchists claim that after their bloody revolution, everyone will be his own bourgeois. When Hitler mentions »größte Anstrengungen« in speeches, then a lot of people translate this to »great struggle«, but it actually means horrendous effort was put in. The English translations, especially the newer ones, are problematic. Edit: with *Kampf* is mostly meant to have a fight against other peoples, while *Beendigung des Klassenkampfes/Klassenhasses* means to end the fight within the own people (the Volk) when it comes to Nationalsocialism.
@@laisphinto6372 I would say they do because his speeches and texts were much more differentiated than pseudo-communists want to hear and they would hear that Hitler is leaning hard on communism. And it is even more strange that this watering down happens a lot in anglophone countries with translations.
A very thoughtful conversation on the topic. I have rarely heard a properly read criticism of fascism and 3rd positionism. I’ve definitely taken interest in their literature and rhetoric recently, so it is a breath of fresh air to hear someone confront it this well. That said, I probably have my own challenges to this video, but more on framing than the substance itself. Describing it as a cult is certainly accurate, but in the same breath, I think the defense against its criticisms of liberalism to be kind of weak. I certainly think fascist economics is socialist in effect. Which I find to be its weakest element. But I can’t really shake its criticisms of liberalism. I have been unconvinced that liberalisms materialist promises to resolve these problems to work. It seems to just make it worse.
Hey TIK, this isn’t really related to the video but I’ve recently heard the claim that Italian Fascism, although not being anti-semitic (like you’ve pointed out), was ‘highly racist’ towards Slavs and Africans in their colonies, so what is your take on this?
There's a difference between bog-standard racism and the ideology of Fascism or National Socialism. So I'm not denying that there was racism anywhere in Italy or the Italian armed forces or even in the Fascist Party. But I am saying that the _ideology_ of Italian Fascism only started to bring in racist elements around 1936-ish when Mussolini wanted to align with Hitler after being isolated on the diplomatic level thanks to the Ethiopian war. So while racism was a thing (in practically every country at the time) that doesn't necessarily mean that everybody was Fascist, and Fascism was racism. There is a distinction to be made. And I would also say that Italian Fascism was Nationalistic (not racist-nationalism, just old-fashioned nationalism), and their attacks upon the Ethiopians were driven by pro-Italian nationalism (which maybe had some racism latched onto it) rather than ideological racism. They were pro-Italian on nationalist grounds, not racist grounds (until the late 1930s at least). Another way to think about it: Britain conquered a quarter of the globe because of free trade and making money, not because they just wanted to enslave other people. If they just wanted slaves, why would they sail all the way to India first before conquering Africa? Why would they sail to North America, or Australia? That doesn't make sense, until you realise that they only did so because of economics. And yes, there was racism that accompanied the conquests, and obviously slavery at first (until Britain adopted classic liberalism and was the first empire in history to fight to free the slaves), however it wasn't ideological racism that drove the expansion of the British empire. It wasn't anything like National Socialism. Racism accompanied the expansion, but it didn't drive it. Same with Italian Fascism: racism accompanied the expansion, but didn't drive it. With National Socialism however, racism drove the expansion and everything else that came along with. So there is a distinction and if we don't recognise it, we'll come to the wrong conclusions, which would be dangerous because our view of the world will be distorted. The Left today don't make this distinction, lump everything together, and then come to stupid conclusions like Churchill being a fascist, despite the fact that for almost a year Churchill and the British were the only ones fighting Mussolini and Hitler. (And I'm not saying Churchill wasn't racist or a bad guy, I'm just pointing out that he wasn't Fascist - he locked up Oswald Mosley and many other Fascists in Britain.)
@12:20 "Collectivism is Individualism seeking strength in numbers" is a sleight of hand. Individualism is being used instead of "individuals." Individualism is strictly a philosophy of the individual irrespective of any "strength in numbers" which undermines and defeats the meaning and purpose of the individual which is their own individuality or "difference" as distinct from the "sameness" of the group or collective. Individualism is not about "shared interest" or what is common, but rather uncommon or special.
I'd love to see more content related to post-WWII fascism and how it developed from the perspective of different fascist thinkers, to see what informs modern fascism philosophically.
I spent five minutes building a que for perusal. When I clicked on TIKhistory, I got one of those recognizable computer glitches as seen in the Matrix franchise movies. The non-constitutional surveillance dupes truly appreciate TIKpopularity. Their job description prioritizes stepping on toes.
This is a great video TIK. If there is one thing I learned from this video, that is don't worship the fascist Megazord and don't work towards the Megazord. As a former fascist, you should keep making videos explaining fascism and how Nazism, fascism and Communism are all 3 different sects of the same religion.
Many people in the west also conflate fascism and Nazism, so this isn't a Russian thing, it's actually a Communist/Socialist thing. The official Marxist position was that Nazism was a form of Fascism, and that Fascism was the end-stage of capitalism. Therefore, most people are completely clueless about this topic, which explains why even the fascists and National Socialists themselves are getting this wrong.
At about six minutes in you describe the dialectic as Thesis>Antithesis>Negation>Synthesis. Antithesis and Negation are the same, the latter deriving from the alternative Abstract>Negative>Concrete phrasing.
I'm doing alright, thanks, you? I needed a break from Stalingrad so I've spent today doing research on the Battle of Gazala. It's the first time in a while that I've done battle-related work that was fun to actually do
Hi Tik, I really love your videos and wondered if you are ever going to make a video about Perón and Argentinian fascism (which is in power to this day), I have some bibliography about Perón if you'd like, he's really not the greatest human being by far...
Why bother even calling themselves fascism if they are gonna deny being collectivists? Musollini was openly collectivist.
Well, they're technically not denying it. They're just saying "we're something that's collectivist and not collectivist at the same time". It's a typical tactic that all Socialists do to deny what they are - which is the core concept. By denying what they are, it makes us look like we don't understand them. They can just deny whatever it is we say about them or their position, and therefore 'prove' how stupid we supposedly are for not knowing what they 'truly' are, even though we know precisely what they are, and they never give us any definitions or explanations. It's the strategy of an idiot.
It's like how all the covid crazies openly advocated for tyrannical policies, but simultaneously claimed it's actually not tyranny, because it's a good thing, and they like the good things, and you like the bad things.
@@TheImperatorKnight there is this youtuber The Golden one who reviewed Juvola's books since he's on the right or far right. So did Academic Agent and The Lotus Eaters (Sargon's podcast or whatever it is) although I haven't seen it.
Fascist Collectivism is not as extreme as Communism. In Germany National-Socialism was seen as less radical alternative to Communism, the Nazis didn't want the state to take away the "productive"(non-jewish) Capital or traditional family farms (against soviet-style collectivization of agriculture).
Given the IQ of the average neo-nazi it's remarkable they have a grasp on the meaning of collectivism at all because let's be honest for most of them their "right wing politics" boils down to "luv me wife, luv me country, luv beer. Ate gays, ate foreigners, ate fancy words." Telling them Mussolini was a syndicalist who created syndicalism on steroids and called it _Fascism_ blows their mind because they have no idea what syndicalism is, or fascism for that matter or who Mussolini is, or that the man despite his many flaws was probably less racist than Winston Churchill....
The perfect argument for free speech: "we can't learn from them if they are silenced."
*"learn how to beat them" but only because of npc types
Oh my, too bad no one can learn from N@ zis :(
They can easily influence the uninitiated (your boomer dad)
YES, KINDLY INFORM TODAY'S TOP BOOKBURNER #youtube
The perfect argument against it, is someone buying a bill board in front of your child's school and putting up porn for them to see every day..
Tik you never fail to inform me! This is probably THE most compressive WW2 era UA-cam channel ever! Thank you for the hours of historical documentations!
It really can't be said enough, fascists and communists don't hate each other because they're so different, they hate each other because they're so similar, and both require total dominance of culture and power.
In practice yes. In theory, no. At least if you have read Marx.
@@soulknife20theory is completely meaningless if the practice doesn't reflect it.
@@markzuckergecko621 Fair point.
@@soulknife20socialism is like a pyramid scheme. It's never actually like the people trying to rope you into it tell you it is.
Yeah, no, it's because the commies want to destroy everything that is good, sacred and wholesome. In the words of someone else "they want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny."
THIS is why I'm a supporter. You have stumbled into the elephant in the room, and you have the skills to make it visible, both to those who are under its spell, and to others who deny its existence. I've vaguely known about the Gnostic problem for years, but I've not been able to work out how it's been made to work in the modern, largely secular world. This is utter genius, TIK. All power to your mega-zord! Or not.
Please keep digging, but be careful. it's easy to end up seeing a Gnostic under every bush.
I've known about the Gnostic problem and it was driving me crazy all of these historical coincidences (I'm not a historian and was not actively searching for anything) that seemed non-random. I just didn't know anything about gnosticism or even its existence, but yes now I can see it everywhere. "Modernity has become the most successful Gnostic myth in history."
Julius Evola wasn't a fascist. While he supported many aspect of it, he criticized it in his book "Fascism Viewed from the Right".
Yes, Evola was a traditionalist arch-conservative rather than a fascist. He was to the right of Mussolini.
It’s very easy to ignore Evolva without confronting evolva in the post war years. Or looking up his French interview which is easily accessible on UA-cam where he says it (fascism) was basically a momentary political fad. His works on spiritual doctrine on Buddhism are interesting as they almost get close what typical adherents of the faith agree on but are confused as Evola unearths the hidden masculine orgins of Buddhism out of the modern trends. They will say though he’s off on how translates terms though, but his analysis is very interesting from an outsider perspective to them.
Evola was nothing but a whackjob with influential friends, pretty much like Dugin today. If you want to understand Mussolini look to Gabriele D’Annunzio instead. Modern "Fascists" don't like to do that because their current ideas have little to do with the ideas of the past if they aren't straight up running contrary to them.
He was madder than a box of frogs.
@@tancreddehauteville764 He said it himself at his show trial. He was "supra-fascisti". A super-fascist. As in "beyond fascist".
Just yesterday I was looking for videos that looked more in depth into fascist economics, and TIK once again provides what I'm looking for. Cheers mate!
I'm really happy with where you've been going with the channel lately. Thanks for all you do.
Finally, a tuber who got dialectics right in one line: thesis-antithesis-synthesis. It was even said in passing only, incidental. Glad I caught that though.
Is strange, after I discovered TIK, his videos help me to understand better my religion, as a Christian I was confront in many cases to negated coletivism and embrace individualism, but only after TIK Public vs Private I understand that, in some weird way, thank you TIK to make me a better christian and individualist person
Same with me. I am glad I gave TIK's videos a try, his POV is both interesting and, as far as I can tell, very accurate.
So you believe in a God? That's so absurd.
@@SchmulKrieger Why? Exist various logical arguments in favor of God
@@fsa7703 why do we need a collective noun called God to say existence when we have the word existence already or other words, like nature, cosmos, universe, World, material word and non material world, soul etc. Those words seem so senseless and unuseful, because we have the collective noun God. 🙄
@@SchmulKrieger Because I am a Christian, and I believe in the personification of God in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
World, universe, cosmos... In my faith are creations of God, not God himself.
You, Academy of Ideas and James Lindsay are always on my watch list. I constantly rewatch videos from all three chanels as they seem to compliment eachother.
Keep up the good work TIK. Much love from Brasil. Stay free!
The three channels bring a historic, phillosophical and political view on the current socialism the left is pushing on us.
I like Academy of Ideas - Aristotelian / Niezschean insights
I think the Will to Power is misunderstood - could be called Will to Vitality but could not be called Will to Dominance
You should look into Objectivism too then.
"My genocidal collectivist ideology is completely different from your genocidal collectivist ideology."
Fascism isnt genocidal, nazism is.
@@giovincomaz2175It is genocidal. Just not on the basis of race. I would consider Mussolini’s attempt to obliterate local Italian cultures and languages a form of soft genocide. Similar to Hitler’s destruction of local German cultures. If anything is against state unity, the fascist deems it necessary to destroy it.
@@giovincomaz2175 "nothing outside the state"
Think harder.
Nazism & communism are totalitarian & partisan (favoring the ethno-linguistic Germanics or workers)
The promotion of a partisan faction via totalitarian methods results in genocide
Fascism does not shy from violence or murder, but they claim to represent the nation state and through it all citizens, so they do not have a designated enemy group to genocide
@@giovincomaz2175It didn't get a chance to be! The Austrian Painter stole the limelight, *and* ensured the cattle trains ran on time!
Humans derive meaning in the conquest of suffering.
It actually makes sense based on how people act when they have all their needs met but no challenge to keep them occupied. They often go out of their way to needlessly create a challenge.
straight out of what jordan peterson said
The fact that you're able to discuss and explain these ideas at all, let alone as objective as you're doing here, is a rare thing indeed and speaks volumes about you as a human being
Описание диалектики на этом канале абсолютно ложно. Никто и никогда с 19 века не понимал диалектику как отрицание истины и совмещение противоречащих тезисов. Диалектика это наука о развитии, а не об истине. Синтез не приносит истины, он просто создает новый тезис. Диалектика описывает реальность, а не идеал.
Нет сомнений, что эта клевета умышленная. Никто и никогда не критиковал диалектику таким образом.
@@ФёдорМартыненко-ш1зit's weird watching him talk about the 3rd position's point of view in such a heavily religious way as well. The problems and solutions have never been considered "sacred secrets" as far as I've known. It's the purposeful suppression of the literal actual Truth (not God, objective truth about reality) that's caused so much confusion and it's why the author introduces it in the way he does
@@ФёдорМартыненко-ш1з bro what
I used to call myself a fascist back in high school, not really knowing what it really was. Looking back, I saw it as a phase, but rather than going emo like some kids back then I just jumped on the fascist wagon instead. Then, as the years went on, the media started to make all these claims about how fascism is on the rise and such. Luckily, I was over my fascist phase but was confused as to what the media was claiming. It then led me to some UA-cam commentators claiming that the ideology was never right wing but rather left, which brought me to your channel. All I can say is thank you, Tik, for steering me away from fascism and other "ideologies." You actually show that they're nothing more than cults or religions that want to destroy the very nature of man.
How did you interpret Fascism if you didn’t know what it was? Attracted to power, or sense of identity? Education is very important in schools. Unfortunately, it’s indoctrination rather than information.
"But the devil’s goal is not only to present man with an egalitarian vision of the universe, but also a vision that destroys the very concept of being. He wants to implement a state of nothingness, to reabsorb creation into the primitive nothingness, which is gnosis." Haha... I just read this on another site 30 seconds before I read your comment
If I understood the last sentence correctly, these political ideologies want to subsume the very nature of man into their system of state worship. Everyone becomes a sacrificial lamb on call at the behest of the ruling collective.
@maxhouse2409 Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.
@@ImperialKnight86I was the same as him. The only reason I embraced it was because it was unpopular. As a contrarian, I have to contradict everything popular you see.
One note on being in the Army. At no point do you cease being an individual. While the training, tactics, and doctrines REQUIRE teamwork, these do not require the destruction of the individual for the sole sake of the whole. While self discipline and "good order and discipline" on the unit level are important to all soldiers, the Army seeks constantly to promote, retrain for new roles, reward service with college benefits, etc. Why? Because every officer and NCO in the Army understands that service in the military is only one part of being a person and being a soldier does not define the PERSON as if every person is a one dimensional being defined only by what they do to get paid. So when they point to the military, they are displaying the same ignorance of that as they do with everything else. These belief systems are nothing but neck beard wet dreams in which their wholly inadequate intellects and capacities are magically in charge.
Really ? Ours is not to reason why; ours is but to do and die 😁
@@aleksazunjic9672 Nice moto movie quote. We were talking about real life, though.
The army is all about self sacrifice for the group though. Dying for your brothers. Dying for your 'country'. Being forced to follow orders or else be reprimanded. The military will be the last vestige of the collectivist state.
I think it depends on army. If you need nothing more than cannon meat (russians), you will not care about what soldier thinks as a person.
Militaries classify some of their members as expendable. One of my duties for 16 hours a week was to stand on the outer perimeter as a soft target to be shot. The sound of gunshots was a signal for the inner perimeters to harden.
My CO also had a loaded pistol in his locker to commit suicide if captured. Mission first.
You should analyze Theodore Kaczynski’s thoughts on Leftism from a modern perspective.
Kaczynski's manifesto is like the definition of a red pill.
Brilliantly assaults the state(s) and its crimes.
Yes!
It's a bit outside of his normal wheelhouse, but I'd watch the hell outta that.
Me too 👍🏻
Ted Kaczynski🥰🥰🥰😍😍🤩🤩🥰🥰
You didn't have to drop a video on my birthday Tik but I do appreciate it!
Just don't tell my family this is my favorite present so far...
Happy birthday
Happy Birthday!
“We can’t learn about someone’s ideas if they’re silenced” may be the most important free speech argument I’ve ever heard!
Yes. Evolution
"There is a difference between going to church on Sunday and trying form the megazoid" - TIK 2023
Excellent, well-researched content (as usual) that is communicated logically and without being overly critical or hateful.
If someone wants to know what modern fascism is nowadays you can look at Argentina. Perón was a fascist argentinian who was in fascist Italy and when he came back to Argentina he implemented the fascist policies that where there (some of them where a copypaste) and he even did things like helping national socialist scape there with "their" gold. What Argentina has right now is a openly modern form of peronism (and therefore fascism) wich is to no surprise very left leaning and still has those bases from fascism such as corporativism, syndicalism etc.... It can also be found in Spain with Sumar (a conglomerate of a few very left leaning parties) wich literaly means "to add" (as joining forces) wich is not only run by a politician who I would call a modern fascist (she is very, very close to it, she was the one who run the ministry of labour and in previous ages she was a key part of syndicalism wich she showed these previous years). This can be seen in that Podemos ("we can") not only is tied to the politics of Argentina and honor them but their economic program and policies are almost the same as the Falange, the clasical fascist party, in fact the lider of said party said that and that they could be able to understand each others because of that and get to an agreement. Even the name of the coalition resembles fascism, the fascio is a fascist symbol because it represents their beliving in collectivism and how if they join politically they can be strongly enough to encounter everything and that can be see in both their coalition and their name wich again can be interpreted as to join, as a sum of it. The same way comunism evolved and left nationalism behind in some of their modern forms and joined few collectivistics ideologuies/sects known for most as "wokeness" (or whatever you wanna call it, femisim, anti racism, pro lgtb etc...) so did fascism in a similar fashion
or just look at russia, should get russian translations lol. cult of putin
@@zalandarr I know almost nothing about Russia politicaly aside from Putin being athoritarian and it being in a scretchy situation to be honest
Pensé que era el unico argentino acá jajajajaj gracias por decir lo que todos los argentinos estamos pensando. Estaría bueno que Tik haga un video sobre Perón si algún día tiene la paciencia para leer sobre tan inmundo ser.
@@JuanIgnacioRiveroMaciel en realidad soy español, tan solo se algo sobre lo que ocurrió allá. And yeah, a look there would be great plus some other topics but I don't think my petitions can reach him and I don't know if he would listen to us in that sense
For a country like Argentina (mixed-race society, large inequality in abilities) ... some kind of populist fascism is the best system. It would give large masses some bread and circus, while ensuring stability for more gifted parts of society.
“Strength in Numbers” refers to the same concept I believe you mentioned in your Hitler’s Socialism video.
The individual sacrificing his or her individuality to be part of the group, the collective, to achieve socialist goals.
I can’t remember if you gave it a name or simply described it.
You hit a point that everyone else misses: fascists are not materialists. They are spiritualists who desire spiritual strength, moral hierarchy, and a triumph over external threats.
You refer to them as a cult but there are merely the other side of the mind/body dichotemy.
While Nationalsocialists are highly materialists.
More succintly, a "cult of victory" (Augusto del Noce).
Book tip: The Occult Roots of Nazism: The Ariosophists of Austria and Germany, 1890-1935
Author Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke wrote a PhD thesis on this subject.
the intresting question here is...why was it Austria and Germany?
@@lollypop333100 Partialy the zeitgeist of the time, partialy the huge mix of ethnicities, languages, religions etc. that were the staple of Austria/Hungary/(Balkans). Germany was more unified but the rule of the aristocratic/burgois elite was also a huge burden on the farmers workers and plebs, so it is not supprising that a lot of people were looking for an political/gnostic explanation/alternative.
Random question...did Rockefeller have any influence? I think he was into new ageianism and eugenics. I just got a book on him, but haven't read it yet. All of these ideas and beliefs seem to surround Blavatsky some way.
@@lollypop333100 Austrians to this day deny being German . Hitler was Austrian. Maybe WW2 isn't remotely what history records it as.
Nazi's weren't occultist
It is possible to cooperate and compete with someone at the same time, because there can be varying intensities of conflict. You can compete with other members of the same athletic team to see who can score the most points, while still striving more stringently to defeat the opposing team.
It is possible to survive, even beyond death, without reproducing, by contributing something else to humanity, or whatever subgroup one favors, such as creative productivity, military service, etc.
Dogs and cats may not compete for mates, but they do compete for food very often; arguably an even more important component of survival overall.
I agree with most of what you say, but these flaws are significant and should be addressed.
I'm glad to see this brought up. He seems to have an oversimplified or outdated understanding of the theory of evolution. The Selfish Gene is probably a good start but maybe I'm out of the loop as well.
Would be pretty cool if you went on the lotus eaters, I’ll be interested to see you and Carl have a talk
@sydmccreath4554 True. Maybe even Academic Agent.
Carl talks about Cosmic Order when talking about the neccesity of punishment and the death penalty.
@@Rellikan so?
Thanks for your videos, TIK. Amazing content AS ALWAYS!
This isn't terrible coverage of the issue but I do take umbrage with some of the ideological tone your more recent videos have taken. For instance, you claim that one can only ever be an individual or a member of a group collective, and this is steadfastly false. Even within a group collective there are competitive individuals, individuals which are more or less loyal to the group depending on the circumstances, etc. In the military, there are individuals giving orders and taking orders not necessarily out of faith for the cause but because if that chain of command were to break down, they'd be routed, killed, or imprisoned in POW camps. It's an individual choice to belong to a collective, or to create a collective from whole cloth to achieve goals which cannot be achieved individually. As an individual in a group, depending on your role, you have no choice but to submit yourself to some of the whims of the overall group. This is the case right down to the nuclear family, the former smallest unit of civil society. Additionally, it absolutely is the case that society and biology are rife with contradictions. There is no such thing as any organically existing thing which does not live in a state of balance between competing forces, nor is there any school of thought which is entirely logically consistent AND accurately reflects the state of reality. The world we live in today is so interwoven and the organizations we are subjected to are so massive that it's impossible for there not to be contradictions in its functioning. And yet, despite that tension, and despite the many moments in which certain tensions break, it is still ultimately functional -- more functional than any system which has existed before. This isn't to say that contradiction is or should be the goal, but that managing those contradictions works pretty well for the time being, even if there are innocents caught in the crossfire when certain battles flare up. I'm not saying this out of love for any particular regime or any ideological commitment to or against liberalism, but when you look around, things are far more stable than they used to be. It wasn't so long ago that people in so-called developed countries regularly starved to death; today that's practically unheard of, and it was the combination of statecraft and adherence to objective economic principles that made that possible.
Regarding the nakedly ideological stances you take: I don't care much, I recognize everyone interested in these highly granular discussions is coming at it from their own perspective or through the lens of critics they admire, but the harping on how the state is ultimately the root of all theft and violence and inflation and class warfare is incredibly simplistic. "Taxation is theft" is a moral claim, not an objective one, and it collapses the role of the state throughout all of recorded history (indeed, without the development of the state, there'd be no history to speak of) into a cartoon villain not unlike the caricature of capitalists adopted by Marxists or of Jews adopted by Nazis. Your points would be better supported if you viewed these developments as organic outcomes to human civilizational development based upon the pressures of the time in which they occurred, rather than as a perennial war on all by the only organizations with monopolies on the use of violence. That monopoly is fundamentally necessary in order to secure the markets you speak so fondly of. At the same time, you often argue we've never had capitalism or "true" free markets; what does that tell you about your political orientation? To me it reads as just as utopian as the communism foretold by Marxists, a world that has never existed because it can never exist. Taking for instance natural free-floating prices: the nominal price of goods can never accurately reflect the actual value of those goods because there is always a delay in or absence of information which would affect its price. Price has to be struck somewhere at some point to maximize profits (either from the good itself or from other goods sold by the same firm), but without perfect real-time surveillance of the entire economy at once, prices will always be an imperfect indicator for the state of the economy because they will always be slightly out of step with the real value of goods. This isn't to say it's a worthless metric, obviously not, nor is this to say that price caps and subsidies don't have distortionary effects on the rest of the economy in which they are imposed, but it is to say that pricing itself is merely representational, much like virtually any other economic phenomena we've given a name to. I felt the same way when you mentioned GDP being a worthless fake indicator; it's imperfect and can be gamed, sure, but so can everything else. Markets generally tend towards consolidation anyway, in search of those more perfect price surveillance and profit maximization capabilities, and where they don't, it's the state that breaks them up so as to limit the power that monopolistic firms/cartels have (and to entrench the state's role in managing the economy). GDP is still as much an indicator of economic health as nominal prices are, since all these values constantly change depending on 1. what's actually happening in the economy, 2. who's reporting these figures, and 3. how they're choosing to report them and for what reason. Again, proof of contradiction in large dynamic systems, proof of individual actors coalescing into groups, proof of markets and the state being intimately linked, each requiring the other in order to function at all.
In general I like your videos, I find your willingness to tackle such controversial subjects admirable, and I wish your channel success but I did feel compelled to mention some of my good-faith criticisms.
Additionally: I take great umbrage with the tactic of yourself and other liberals like James Lindsay who claim that all of these ideologies which are opposed to liberalism are merely remnants of a gnostic religious tradition. You can certainly make that argument, but it has flimsy backing. It's obfuscatory at best. The stated goals of these movements often do not match their actions (as is the case with any ideologue) but there is no secret gnosticism behind it all. They may be utopian, they may have ardent faith in principles which do not comport well with reality, but that doesn't mean they're all branches of the same gnostic religious tradition, especially not when they come to such heavy blows with each other on a scale similar to World War II. Liberalism also fought hard during that war and ultimately won.
Many of the neo-fascist or communistic movements popping up today do share a through-line with each other but it's often not in the text they're reading or the solutions they're seeking; it's within the behavioral and social dynamics of the internet, and their adoption of radical utopian positions emerges from the type of discourse they're engaged in. Ordinary liberals do this too, whether they be right- or left-leaning. This phenomenon is not specific to the internet but the internet does exacerbate it.
Rather than trying to lump all of these various radicals under one umbrella of "gnostic" and calling it a day, and doing so almost exclusively by nitpicking their stated arguments solely from that critical lens, it might be best to zoom out of what they say they believe in and analyze how these movements came about. What was the context in which they emerged? What kind of people belong to them? How are they similar? How are they different? What is the basis for their decision to organize? What type of actions are they engaged in (if any)? Is there a specific psychological profile to the leadership vs. the members? What does the structure of their organization look like? These questions are far more revelatory than the manifestos alone, and should only be taken in tandem with their stated ideological convictions, never separately.
I think your older video comparing Mosley, Mussolini, and Hitler did a much better job of this, and was much more careful in highlighting the differences between the three. Now, I think in attempting to foment critique of these movements, you've adopted an ideological lens yourself which limits your capacity to do so. This is similar to myself when I was highly critical of what I saw as fascist influence in my online circles and I came around to left-wing theory. Then in critiquing leftists, I nearly circles back around before I backed out of any ideological commitment completely and just started reading for the sake of understanding the impacts left by all of these towering movements, thinkers, and empires which have risen and fallen. You appear to have done so while adopting libertarianism as your critical method, which has turned into an unspoken positive project of sorts. Again, that's fine, I have no real personal issue with libertarians (or fascists or communists or liberals or whoever else), but I think it would do your channel well to maybe break away from that (and perhaps even begin a robust critique of it?) for the intellectual exercise that it is.
HIs ideological "we are all individuals" and "there's no such thing as race" spiel reminds me a lot of Thatcher with her "there is no such thing as society" line. Yes I am an individual within my family but I still try to further the interests of my family, then my community, kin and so on. That's how we can best pass on our genes and everyone should want there to be more people like them in the future. Yes I am in some competition with other members of my ethnic group but at the end of the day if they win they're still passing on more similar genes to myself than a member of another group.
Very well said,
I do not understand how he gets so much praise, in my opinion this is just one big strawman argument, and he is trying to cram as much things as he doesn't like into the gnostic cultism theory.
I think his biggest mistake is taking what is said by some individuals verbatim, instead of analyzing what they did, Stalin could have a secret diary where he said he loves capitalism and hates marx and whatnot, but it would be stupid to analyze this as his ideology when it clearly is not.
I don't mind him being against any ideology, but he clearly has a huge bias which he never addresses, nor does he ever explain things he claims as facts that are just his opinion. I just wish he analyzed it from a historical perspective, with multiple sources, analyzed what happend, rather than just making hitler is actually the same as stalin and basically communism is evil part 27
@@andrija3000 I agree. I do actually like that he positions Hitler and Stalin as similar based on the actual arguments and actions they took in part because I do believe there is ample evidence to suggest Marxist influence on the development of both Bolshevism and National Socialism (and in all honesty I think Hitler was closer to Marx in spirit than Stalin, despite the disavowals) but he treats them both as boogeymen who were simply ideologically opposed to perfect free markets which by his own admission have never existed. In truth his content did used to be much more historicist in outlook but that time has clearly passed.
As for the praise he gets, I do understand this. Any content taking any sort of position on anything is going to attract people who view the world similarly, especially if as granularly dissected as he does it. I understand exactly where the commenters from Eastern European countries come from given my family are from former Warsaw Pact countries. What he says about those places and times isn't strictly wrong but even true things can validate biases. Something as simple as citing a source can fool a lot of people even if the citation isn't used for much else but rhetorical dunking.
It appears that you are conflating a voluntary co-operative collective of individuals with collectivism (which is imposed, involuntary).
A group of people voluntarily deciding to work together for common cause (like some mates deciding to make a computer game, and sell it for profit), and while it could be called a collective, is most definitely not the same as a demand to place the collective above oneself based on some perceived common innate factor, like nationality, race, sex, class, religion, etc.
The difference is, as always, the element of coercion.
Thank you. As Israeli you helped me to understand the path my government leads. It is a kind of mix of Religious and Socialism. I can see the hypocrisy of their statements.
Keep me posted bro, what's going on in Israel? You guys going full fascist?
@@JulianH-co7qgThe sad irony if they are.
@@rostdreadnorramus4936not irony but the eye opener for why they were expelled and persecuted in the first place. Why did every single European country come to same conclusion. If it was just one person or one country it would make sense but how can everyone be wrong at the same time? And how can everyone come to exact same conclusion about them?
These subjects are very heavily tangled up and in my mind becomes a big knot with me not being able to untangle but you do it perfectly TIK. You're like that parent who simplifies everything and then teaches you how to do yourself, making me feel like I'm growing up. I was always tripping over myself and now I feel like I can walk without tripping over myself, plus didn't know how esoteric these philosophies whereby a distorted faith is lying behind them. Thank you TIK.
step 1: collect underpants
step 2:
step 3: ultimate truth
Your gnostic hypothesis seems a pretty rich vein. Religious aspects of collectivism have been manifest at least since 20 Prairial Year II and Herbert’s Cult of Reason. The same tendencies have surfaced in every socialist movement, and socialist state over the years. Your ideas here make a real contribution to understanding the common character of socialism in all its various forms. Really great work!
I really like the research you do on modern day 3rd positionism, it brings it to light and shows how it has evolved over time under the radar. Great video as always.
Tik, as far as I understand Julius Evola was neither a fascist or a national socialist; in fact, he criticized both ideologies fervently. His book, “Fascism Viewed From The Right”, is composed entirely of his problems with Italian Fascism from the point of view of a reactionary traditionalist. I don’t think Evola ever tried to blend Fascism and National Socialism into one as he disliked both of them; National Socialism even more so. I think it would be beneficial to read both “Revolt Against The Modern World” and “Fascism Viewed From The Right” to get a better understanding of Evola’s ideas.
For whatever reason, TIK refuses to read or understand Evola at all. He seems to have just written him off as the Italian Himmler
@@doronaznible7298 He was the Italian Himmler, in terms of finding a way to communicate (or unify as Tik says) the two ideologies for political purposes.
@OP: I also distrust Evola's reflective criticism of his erstwhile ideological bedfellow in Fascism Viewed From The Right. It reads as a covering of ones tracks to compensate from the failure of the ideology (one he actively participated in and I believe, had faith in) for credibility purposes.
In the end it's all academic though. Evola's ideas are just another dead end.
@@ThyCorylusNo he wasn’t. He was never a member of the fascist party, and his works were actively censored by the Italian government. He even had to escape from the SS as they viewed him as dangerous and subversive. And no. He never once tried to combine fascism and Nazism together. If you look at fascism and Evola, you’ll realise the man had very little in common with it. Evola was an aristocrat that despised fascism and Nazism’s insistence on socialist economics, nationalism and obsession with a mono cultural state.
Thank you TIK for you continuing work and sorting of information about political-economic-religious ideological doctrine. It helps to explain the structural organization parallel from Stanislav Andreski's 'Military Organization & Society'.
Edit: my thought years ago was why totalitarianism was painted in terms of classic Left and Right, where these are societies that require high levels of collectivization/participation (high Military Participation Rate) to maintain high levels of stratification/hierarchy.
I very much enjoy your manner of dismissing ridiculous, contradictory ideas with the irreverence and mockery they deserve. 😆
Keep going, man! I absolutely love these videos!
To any former socialist of any form: Good luck on your journey, I recommend Mises. Stay strong, learn to be free.
What I find witty, Mises tells how the market function, but reality fails to portray his words.
@@SchmulKrieger mises takes care to describe a prioristic praxeological categories relating to the reality of human nature, and the nature of the world as it presents themselves to us. This is in no way invalidated by the empirical observation that some people don't realize this, and that some make use of that ignorance to control their fellow man. If you cannot see that, you should keep your illconceived remarks to yourself.
I'm am industrial electrician, how do i understand this better than yiu do?
@@UmaROMC and leaves out that human nature is to gang up, built huge tribes, nations whatever. He simply fails human nature, because his is only an abstraction, a God in his texts.
Marx's labor theory of value places all commodities on a single scale of value and thus creates zero-sum thinking
Exchanges are more for less (exploitative) or equal for equal (pointless) rather than A for B (mutually beneficial)
This zero-sum thinking turns everything into a power struggle instead of cooperation in pursuit of mutual flourishing
Applied to race, sex, etc you get woke
real socialists dont change -youre thinking of he pseudo one s like TIK
Words are inadequate to convey my gratitude for all you have taught us. This lecture is an excellent object lesson and draws beautifully on your previous lectures. The clarity is remarkable and life changing. Many thanks again.
Also, for those who believe central planning and direction are viable strategies, it came to light after the Soviet Union collapsed that their economy was roughly 5-10% the size of the US's. That being said, the ministry in charge of price controls had to keep track of 30-40 million prices. At a TENTH of our economy! I can't fathom trying to keep track of 300 million prices, if not vastly more today (2024). The fact that collectivists assume they are capable of doing this is a great display of their narcissism
All this supernatural talk the Fascists speak of brings to my mind the Nazis from Indiana Jones doing witchcraft around the Ark of the Covenant and getting their faces melted off by spirits.
Die Bundeslade, which is in fact a Judaist figure. LoL. You need to learn about history and this stuff.
You said Evola was a nut job but I haven't found any medical evidence supporting this claim. Can you elaborate?
You also said that you can't be an individual and a group at the same time but is this really true? My family is a group. My project at my work is also a group. Why can't I have individualistic strives while being in that group? Why can't I have duties to my family while also having personal dreams?
Individualism doesn't really exist since we live in a society.
Your argument for cats and dogs was also kinda bad, since humans are the same species and different races can interbreed with each other unlike cats and dogs.
"Youre either a collectivist or an individualist"
Have you ever heard of a community? You can be an individual within a community and still work towards common goals as a community.
Communities are made up of individuals, only individuals can determine what a common goal is, and if they work towards them. Thus individualism. There is no collectivism there what so ever.
Collectivism and individualism are a way of analysing politics, not a rule in your behaviour towards others. "Individualist" does not mean "anti-social", it just means that you consider the individual the most important actor in politics and in general.
"Collectivists" see groups as entities in their own right, while individuals are merely cells working in tandem, which individualists do not adhere to.
An individualist would say "A group is a bunch of individuals working for a shared goal" while with collectivists it is more that an individual is someone who is a part of a group working for a certain goal.
@@fakeorchestra4260 Explained it better than I could
Hi Tik love your videos! If you are concerned about the third positionists channel from being taken down, you can download and archive the videos. Thus if it is taken down, you still have all the material to work with and reference. Another brilliant video Tik, keep up the good work! Have you done any work on looking at Pol Pots Cambodia and their brand of ideology ? I think it would be a very interesting thing for you to cover. Once again, brilliant video and keep up the god tier level work!
Yeah I have been recording his videos and taking notes, but I haven't done them all. I did read a book on Pol Pot's Cambodia when I was in college, but I haven't done any deep work on it. It is something I'll cover at some point, but I think Stalin might be something I should cover first once I've done more videos on Marxism in general.
@@TheImperatorKnightyou checked mine at all lol
@@TheImperatorKnight Who is this youtuber? Please tell
If there's any one person that needs to get on the Joe rogan podcast I think you're probably the guy. There's a ton of people that know somethings not right but don't know what and how to define it, but understanding this cultist gnostic ideology really helps to explain everything and highlights the seriousness of the situation we're in. I would suggest there's a high probability this will end disastrously. We essentially have a ruling class of radical cultists in charge of the world's nuclear stockpile and financial system
The thing is there is a thing called group selection in natural selection. It is when different organisms compete one a collective. Aka think tribe 1 which are all more closer related to eachother than tribe 2. Hence if you are a member of tribe 1 the victory of tribe 1 over 2 means you win as your genes get spread further through the other in the tribe.
Natural selection operates on the level of the gene, not the individual or the group
So I can "profitably" sacrifice my personal interests for my family much more than for my tribe and still more than I can for my race
See Dawkins' The Selfish Gene for more
Survival of the fittest within the "race" can just mean that the best within the race are having more children, thus keeping the "race" strong. So it's not necessarily a contradiction.
‘Best’ and ‘fittest’ aren’t at all the same thing. You’re putting the ‘cart before the horse’ by saying “the best…have more children”. Specimens are fittest because they produce more offspring. They’re not fit to reproduce, they’re fit because they reproduce.
Love your philosophical economical political vids👍. One detail: marxists defined socialism as 90% of means of production is owned by "people", meaning state. The remaining 10% were the small hill farms impossible to colectivise. And btw, everytime some of these ideologies mention "struggle" it is invariably excuse and justification to terrorise people they don't like
I'm not sure if calling Evola a fascist is apropriate. He was a complicated guy with views really alien to our modern sensibilieties. He initially was interested in fascism and national socialism but neither Mussolini nor Hitler live up to his standard. Both NSDAP and italian fascist party were too open to the people for his taste. Instead of purging themselves and forming an intellectual elite they allowed basicaly everyone in. What he envisioned was not a party political party but sort of neo-feudal warrior-priest class ruling over the plebs. Such social order in his view would not require a totalitarian state as it did in both germany and italy because a person cofined to a role of a peasant/craftsman/whatever would enjoy the certainty strict hierarchical order brings.
It's also important to note that Evola was not a Hegelian. Dialectic assumes that there is an end point of history we should struggle (see what i did there lol) towards. Evola viewed history as an infinite series of degenerative cycles. You start at the highest point (spiritually speaking) and slowly go down the ladder until the civilisation collapses and on it's ashes arises new civilisation with its own golden age which will also degenerate collapse and start the cycle again and again and again.
It's a completely different beast than whatever Gentile, Marx or whoever thought up.
Gentile also rejects end of history. He sees it as constantly in flux with no end or cycles.
@@ZoranZoltanous
That's interesting. Someone told me that Gentile was a Hegelian thinker and i just assumed it to be true. Seems that i got to go back to the books. Does "Origins and doctrine of fascism" reveal his views or should I read something else?
@@mk-tu3gv he’s definitely influenced by Hegel but he doesn’t agree with everything from Hegel. Origins and doctrine is more of an outline. If you’re going to understand him, I recommend the book thought, thinking, which basically summarizes his entire philosophy and has a bunch of his obscure essays inside of it.
"Pride marched into the Gulag" :'D
I will quote this forever^^
The problem is with this publication is it’s not very good and it’s mostly just propaganda. I would recommend checking out my introduction to corporatism I wrote instead. It’s far more concrete in it’s argumentation. The biggest issue with iron march publications is they try to avoid being bogged down to a position and really only appeal to the nation/state to justify complete total pragmatism which is just nonsense.
Former natsoc here. 9:25 is spot on. Happy to say that TIK was one of the few to help me understand it for what it was.
In 1984 Orwell eloquently presents all the hellish ideologies of the 3 "hyperpowers" as pretty similar based on his observation of the USSR and Nazi Germany. Enough said...
The efforts of the individual benefits the many.
An example of this is a TIKhistory video.
Thanks, although I'm not sure if that many are listening 😞
@@TheImperatorKnight you're reaching more mate, and I use your videos as sources, I've managed to teach a few people the diffeences between the ideologies, and you are onto something strong with the Gnostic hypothesis.
just wanna thank you for teaching me some stuff, and helping me teach others.
As a member of a trade union I’d love to hear your pros and cons of trade union builders and the effects we have on the economy.
I once fell for the cult. Covid19 socialism made me snap out of it. Either national, international or democratic or fascist socialism are the same.
"democratic"
This one is important - socdems and progressives share the same principles as the radical socialists and will reach the same outcomes given enough time and power
no theyre not - youre just ignorant -are you that way cause you believe this shill or purposely not learn
nothing about covid19 was socialist
if you double down youre a moron
@@malcolmfreeman7802 it's all about managing or shaping the society, Society is people, you are being manage, like cattle.,
It seems all these Statist/Collectivist ideas assume their ideal State knows what's better for you than you do. Don't ask questions. Submit. Comply. Obey.
This all, I think, provides a valuable backdrop to the political tensions of our day (2020's), as much of the ideological struggle of the first half of the 20th century seems to be repeating to some degree.
From his first video on this subject: "
since the 1800s the West has been dominated by three groups. There’s the Christian Churches, the intellectuals who believe in science, and then a third group of occultists. These three groups have all been fighting against each other, in spirit if not physically, and that these occultists are part of this ancient religion. " It makes perfect sense
@@sdrc92126 That is nonsense.
I am a Christian, and I am an intellectual, and I know people who are this and occultists too, so someone can be all three at the same time.
Your categorization is false.
22:00 In my experience, the lack of empathy that narcissists and psychopaths show, with their lacking, or very artificial crutch attempt at a theory of mind, manifests as an ability to imagine that other people could think differently from yourself, thus could have different personalities. In their limited minds everyone operates the same as them - which also explains and "justifies" why they project so much, why they accuse you of their crimes and their own vices, for those are the ones they can comprehend, and you must be guilty of them too, because they themselves are guilty of them and certainly haven't overcome them, and thus you couldn't either. In short, this is why this guy you cover here believes that individualism is fake, that in an Individualist Society everyone would just be replaceable clones, and only in a collectivist society where the State tells you what to do, you become individualistic through the differences the state decrees/blesses on to you. These people believe differences (individualism) comes from external sources, not from the inside - There's simply not much development on the inside of a narcissistic personality disorder, so I suppose that could thus be a logical conclusion from the point of view of the narcissist. It also explains the obsession with the State looming over you and taking care of you and telling you what exactly to do: It is the replacement for the oedipal parent that never stopped doing exactly that and thereby stunted the emotional/cognitive development of the now narcissist. The prior replacement for that overbearing parent would have been the Church. If we accept Socialism is just a religion, then the latter remains true regardless, as it is merely "some church of some religion" trying to take complete State Power.
I disagree on one thing. There can be individualism and collectivism at the same. Its just a matter of priorities and circumstances. if the threat is greater within a group then individualism is more prominent or if the threat is greater outside the group then collectivism is more prominent. but both are still present at the same time just at different levels.
Everytime you quoted the book, all I could hear was "Submit to the state. Submit to the nation. Sumbit to society. Submit to more important interests that transcend you."
Tell me again why people believe that Marxism and Fascism are radically different? Why are there people that think that Fascism is like "Ultra Capitalism"?
Why do they think that Marx and Hitler are opposites?
Super duper mega capitalism where u can't freely hire or fire workers😂
Because the analysis is desperately inaccurate. Collectivism is the leverage to power. Beyond that, it's potluck what they purport to believe. The nation state is only a framework for mass political power. The national economy is a framework to leverage control over mass resources. After that, it's pick your poison on how it is ordered: race, nation, state, religion, hierarchy, economy. Individuality is sacrificed to Order. They are all claims to legitimacy. But, in civilisation Individuals need to cooperate to get by, and thus, how we cooperate with each other should really defined from the granular level of the individual. But, will it ever be so? No. Somebody will always try to impose their vision of order won't they? Lol.
Marxists uses totalitarian methods to promote the weak (proles), leading to genocide of the strong (kulaks).
National socialism uses totalitarian methods to promote the strong (the Germanic ethno-linguistic "nation") leading to genocide of the weak (JQ)
Fascism uses totalitarian methods to promote the nation state itself, and implicitly all citizens
So Nazism and Marxism are opposites once you have accepted totalitarian socialism as the status quo (rejecting liberalism and feudalism)
Both despise fascism for protecting the enemy class
In my view fascism will inevitably fail because it's a totalitarian socialist project, but it's likely to lead to much less death than Marxist communism or national socialism
because they are - but of course you wouldnt know that if you believed this shill
Marxism is a different ideology than National Socialism
Heres the best video on Marx and socialism and its nothing like hitler
ua-cam.com/video/rRXvQuE9xO4/v-deo.html
Hitler and Marx is a bad example due to them both being communist (Hitler former). As a third positionist, I would be more to the “right” then Hitler due to him having a Marxist background.
Has fascism and/or national socialism evolved over time? - It became social justice?
Also, I think the terms liberal and socialists are as misused by people on the right as fascist and conservatives are by people on the extreme left. A liberal is not a socialist and vice versa. That seems to be a pollution of terms brought about from America.
Socialists tend to lie about what they genuinely believe, depending on the audience. They'll often pretend to be liberal when they're in a more moderate setting, to hide how far left they actually are. That's where a lot of the confusion comes from. It's also why they think everyone right of center is a secret fascist, they're projecting. They think because they lie about how extreme their views are, everyone else must be lying too, and they're on the opposite extreme.
It has evolved and is a Cluster fuck like leftism but im not sure if it can be seen as social justice but it became a kind of non racist racism or anti racism racism ( exept the skin Heads , they are insane). I did a few deep dives about that
Socialism is giving up property for the collective.
Fascism is giving up your rights, soul, AND property to the collective.
And the point of forgetting history is to repeat it. The left forgot what communists and fascists belive... so they're free to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Social Justice is that movement.
Fascism became Third Positionism.
Socialism (including National) became a genus of Intersectionality, aka Social Justice or "wokeness."
Is Keith Woods that youtuber that are you talking about?
I thought they were "free marketers" when it came to trade on small to medium(medium-large) scale, but when dealing with large industry, requiring huge levels of funding, large corporations (with an incentive to monopolise) would be replaced/run by workers unions of the state. The idea being to protect the nation from foreign interests groups, and also to prevent rival powers to the state within the private sector. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Hi, TIK! I'm always impressed when you continue to go deeper into Fascism (and its related ideologies) and discuss different aspects of it. In this video you mentioned Christianity several times, and that makes me curious. Have you considered or would you consider making a video analyzing Pope Leo XIII's 1891 papal encyclical Rerum Novarum? It was published as a response to and critique of both Socialism and Capitalism, and I would be interested in your take on it. I know it's outside your normal field, but it's related so I figure it's at least worth a shot to ask. Keep up the good work, man!
This too would interest me! It would also require some Theological history reading for a proper analysis.
--- AGAIN . . . thank you, for the exceptionally lucid presentation of the history of political religion.
is he talking about keith woods?
Thats what I was thinking,
Keith is one of the biggest in the 3p sphere and has tens of thousands of subs
@@militarytheorist9674 I even used to get him in my feed. LOL. I know why the algorithm picked that. I'd say that there is a split in those circles, as huge share giggles while talking spiritualism, while accepts awkward conclusions of theory of evolution...
I’ve been in some conversations with him and he has watched my channel so it’s probably referring to me.
@@ZoranZoltanous funnily enough I also thought of you bro, I am subbed to you aswell lol.
The part about what is free market at 25:30-ish is something you REALLY need to make a video about. What I mean is do a glossary video. Even though I've been a long term viewer and have read (and in the process of reading) some really good economic books till now I couldn't put what free market is in such simple down to earth words.
Imagine that when I met Jeffrey Tucker (former editor of Mises Institute website) and we started talking away from prying ears of younger libertarians, discussing Carl Schmitt and what not, he suddenly came up with Julius Evola and immediately lit up when I replied I knew that figure. He seemed really content that I summed up Evola's thought as basically "crank". God knows how much fascination he used to have for the perverse baron...
TIK You have to be on a watchlist :D Nice new video and topic. Gonna give it a watch during the shift today. Cheers!
I probably am, which is further proof that our tax money is being squandered!
I have the day off AND TIK drops a 58 minute long video???
There is a god!
Well, I hope you enjoy it :)
22:56 I'm afraid I'll need to disagree.
Did Khrushchev not bring material prosperity to the citizens of the USSR?
Does this make Khrushchev a fake communist?
“By the 1980s it was an open secret that the 2 percent of Soviet farmland that was privately owned was producing 30 percent of Russia’s agricultural output.” - Woods, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History," Kindle p162.
This is what Communism does to the economy - it destroys it. And I have a video explaining the Soviet economy where I come to some surprising conclusions ua-cam.com/video/kPVo9w79D6w/v-deo.html
So how can I find out who this channel is to check out?
But rather than concentrating on more efficient methods of cultivating, fertilizing, and mechanically harvesting corn, Soviet agricultural authorities continued to expand corn acreage to areas lacking in appropriate climatic conditions and sufficient labor supplies. By 1960 total acreage had increased to 28 million hectares and reached 37 million by 1962. The latter year, cool and rainy in the spring and early summer throughout European Russia, proved disastrous for corn. Some 70 to 80 per cent of the acreage planted died. Even in southern regions, where grain corn harvests rose from four million tons in 1953 to 14 million in 1964, yields remained low and labor inputs averaged three times higher than inputs for wheat. What made matters worse was that all the while, hay production had declined throughout the country, from 64 million tons in 1953 to 47 million in 1965. Collective farmers’ suspicions of corn as an “alien” crop were vindicated, but not before a great deal of damage had been done to Soviet agriculture and Khrushchev’s reputation as a wise leader.
It was mention in robert conquest " harvest of sorrow"
One element that seemed to get skimmed over was the hierarchy...IE "THE LEADER" or whoever that guides and uses the organic body for the greater purpose! So in simple terms everyone in society submits to "ME"
From what the Austrian painter says in his book, he seems to be in favor of some sort of king-like figure. Sort of in charge but not, a member of the volk but also something to do with God. Makes no sense to me, but maybe it meant something to him.
@@sillypuppy5940 yes a tad messianic....
@@sillypuppy5940 In western history the priests learned that you'll live longer if you stand beside the throne than sit upon it.
A divine spark is somehow trapped in some (but not all) humans and it alone, of all that exists in this material world, is capable of redemption. --from 'The gist of what gnostics believe'
@@sdrc92126 so we are all "God"? ;)
Excellent video. I totally agree with you TIK
I'd love to see a video on why corporations are not created by the free market
Limited liability
Under a partnership or historical joint-stock company the partners or company directors are liable for the debts of the business to the limits of their personal fortune
The corporate structure becomes a fictional entity that holds its own liability - the human beings involved are not held to ordinary common law liability
Note this applies to both LLCs and normal corporations
please explain why it doesnt ?
@@anonymousAJvery interesting point
@@anonymousAJinteresting 🤔
Hi Tik. Nice banger of a video last week. I own quite a bit of the books you recommended. If you do look at Barbarossa at a later date, David Stahel is someone to keep an eye out for. Cheers from the States.
Hey Vass, how's things? I've got a couple of Stahel's books on Moscow and Barbarossa, and can confirm he's good. I do feel bad because, thanks to me, people keep saying they've got a load of books to read and not enough time to read them :D
@@TheImperatorKnight Been well. Working and reading, same as always. Been slogging through Alex Hill’s “Red Army in WWII,” and some stuff on Braddocks Defeat. How are you?
Oh good! Hill's book is good. I've been working on Stalingrad (no surprise), but today I did some reading on the Battle of Gazala in preparation for post-Stalingrad. It was a very welcome change from the Eastern Front and I can't wait for Stalingrad to be done with now
@@TheImperatorKnight That be cool. I know Stalingrad has been bogging you down. That be a nice change of pace. For what it’s worth, you’ve done a bang up job with Stalingrad.
I'd call Evola's ideas "neo-fascism" not simply "fascism."
Neo-Fascism is real, but Neo-Marxism isn't? Okay buddy.
TIK. I appreciate what you have created. As a historian, it is great to see these topics being tackled. I have used these videos to help explain these ideologies to my kids. Keep up the good work.
I've got to say, your thumbnails have really come a long way.
That's thanks to Terri. She's good at them and does most of them now
I'm glad i waited till i had the time to sit through all of this. Well worth the wait. As for fasc-anon i dont see how it could possibly work in an official group setting. the amount of gatekeeping required would make it unworkable. Something like a self help workbook might work, where you answers a number of questions as journal prompts, and the, re-read what you've written to see if you believe it or if it makes sense.
I hope you're able to one day put this whole gnosticism & national socialism topic together in book form. It would be one of the greatest academic resources on fascism and national socialism that anyone's ever put together. And it should be mandatory reading in public school, if we're going to keep clinging to those
Well, this would be forbidden because it would sway many to investigate further into these ideas.
Please, note that the term CASTE in Indian languages mean ANCESTRY not a kind of SOCIAL ORDER as said by FASCISTS.
I think ”struggle“ is not a correct translation of *Kampf* . Or at least not always. Kampf also means fight and I think *Kampf* is meant way more actively, while struggle is more passively, so it is more like straucheln, where you can put a *Kampf* upon it to end the struggle. Like class struggle is not always meant to be *Klassenkampf* , it is a struggle and an active role played by politicians corrupted by greed and money that set up policies to put the conditions upon the lower classes which resultatively begin to struggle. With endeavour, they say - the bourgeoisie - you can climb the ladder and become one of them, and Anarchists claim that after their bloody revolution, everyone will be his own bourgeois. When Hitler mentions »größte Anstrengungen« in speeches, then a lot of people translate this to »great struggle«, but it actually means horrendous effort was put in. The English translations, especially the newer ones, are problematic.
Edit: with *Kampf* is mostly meant to have a fight against other peoples, while *Beendigung des Klassenkampfes/Klassenhasses* means to end the fight within the own people (the Volk) when it comes to Nationalsocialism.
they water down what hitler actually said which is weird since hitler isnt one to beat around the bush and the choice of translating it like he is
@@laisphinto6372 I would say they do because his speeches and texts were much more differentiated than pseudo-communists want to hear and they would hear that Hitler is leaning hard on communism. And it is even more strange that this watering down happens a lot in anglophone countries with translations.
Trek?
@@sdrc92126 what do you want to say?
@@SchmulKrieger Just a thought. Trek could be a loose synonym of battle. Also _Star Trek_ is very gnostic
A very thoughtful conversation on the topic. I have rarely heard a properly read criticism of fascism and 3rd positionism. I’ve definitely taken interest in their literature and rhetoric recently, so it is a breath of fresh air to hear someone confront it this well.
That said, I probably have my own challenges to this video, but more on framing than the substance itself. Describing it as a cult is certainly accurate, but in the same breath, I think the defense against its criticisms of liberalism to be kind of weak.
I certainly think fascist economics is socialist in effect. Which I find to be its weakest element. But I can’t really shake its criticisms of liberalism. I have been unconvinced that liberalisms materialist promises to resolve these problems to work. It seems to just make it worse.
Hey TIK, this isn’t really related to the video but I’ve recently heard the claim that Italian Fascism, although not being anti-semitic (like you’ve pointed out), was ‘highly racist’ towards Slavs and Africans in their colonies, so what is your take on this?
There's a difference between bog-standard racism and the ideology of Fascism or National Socialism. So I'm not denying that there was racism anywhere in Italy or the Italian armed forces or even in the Fascist Party. But I am saying that the _ideology_ of Italian Fascism only started to bring in racist elements around 1936-ish when Mussolini wanted to align with Hitler after being isolated on the diplomatic level thanks to the Ethiopian war.
So while racism was a thing (in practically every country at the time) that doesn't necessarily mean that everybody was Fascist, and Fascism was racism. There is a distinction to be made. And I would also say that Italian Fascism was Nationalistic (not racist-nationalism, just old-fashioned nationalism), and their attacks upon the Ethiopians were driven by pro-Italian nationalism (which maybe had some racism latched onto it) rather than ideological racism. They were pro-Italian on nationalist grounds, not racist grounds (until the late 1930s at least).
Another way to think about it: Britain conquered a quarter of the globe because of free trade and making money, not because they just wanted to enslave other people. If they just wanted slaves, why would they sail all the way to India first before conquering Africa? Why would they sail to North America, or Australia? That doesn't make sense, until you realise that they only did so because of economics.
And yes, there was racism that accompanied the conquests, and obviously slavery at first (until Britain adopted classic liberalism and was the first empire in history to fight to free the slaves), however it wasn't ideological racism that drove the expansion of the British empire. It wasn't anything like National Socialism. Racism accompanied the expansion, but it didn't drive it. Same with Italian Fascism: racism accompanied the expansion, but didn't drive it. With National Socialism however, racism drove the expansion and everything else that came along with.
So there is a distinction and if we don't recognise it, we'll come to the wrong conclusions, which would be dangerous because our view of the world will be distorted. The Left today don't make this distinction, lump everything together, and then come to stupid conclusions like Churchill being a fascist, despite the fact that for almost a year Churchill and the British were the only ones fighting Mussolini and Hitler. (And I'm not saying Churchill wasn't racist or a bad guy, I'm just pointing out that he wasn't Fascist - he locked up Oswald Mosley and many other Fascists in Britain.)
I've never seen anyone go down a rabbit hole like you tik
"We can't form megazord if we're in a conflict"
See now if they just said that I'd be interested in their cult.
@12:20 "Collectivism is Individualism seeking strength in numbers" is a sleight of hand. Individualism is being used instead of "individuals." Individualism is strictly a philosophy of the individual irrespective of any "strength in numbers" which undermines and defeats the meaning and purpose of the individual which is their own individuality or "difference" as distinct from the "sameness" of the group or collective. Individualism is not about "shared interest" or what is common, but rather uncommon or special.
Liberalism and free markets are a religion too. In fact, every political ideology is.
I'd love to see more content related to post-WWII fascism and how it developed from the perspective of different fascist thinkers, to see what informs modern fascism philosophically.
Good video, sir.
I spent five minutes building a que for perusal. When I clicked on TIKhistory, I got one of those recognizable computer glitches as seen in the Matrix franchise movies. The non-constitutional surveillance dupes truly appreciate TIKpopularity. Their job description prioritizes stepping on toes.
I am glad that somebody can spot the similarity between national socialism, communism and welfare state.
This is a great video TIK. If there is one thing I learned from this video, that is don't worship the fascist Megazord and don't work towards the Megazord. As a former fascist, you should keep making videos explaining fascism and how Nazism, fascism and Communism are all 3 different sects of the same religion.
You said it yourself. It was published by Ruzzian. To them everything is Fascism. In Soviet history books Third Reich is called Fascist Germany.
Its not far of. Nazism is seen as fascism in austrian books too so the russians are in the Main stream in this reguard
Many people in the west also conflate fascism and Nazism, so this isn't a Russian thing, it's actually a Communist/Socialist thing. The official Marxist position was that Nazism was a form of Fascism, and that Fascism was the end-stage of capitalism. Therefore, most people are completely clueless about this topic, which explains why even the fascists and National Socialists themselves are getting this wrong.
At about six minutes in you describe the dialectic as Thesis>Antithesis>Negation>Synthesis.
Antithesis and Negation are the same, the latter deriving from the alternative Abstract>Negative>Concrete phrasing.
Hey Tik, hope you're all good.
I'm doing alright, thanks, you? I needed a break from Stalingrad so I've spent today doing research on the Battle of Gazala. It's the first time in a while that I've done battle-related work that was fun to actually do
Hi Tik, I really love your videos and wondered if you are ever going to make a video about Perón and Argentinian fascism (which is in power to this day), I have some bibliography about Perón if you'd like, he's really not the greatest human being by far...
This will be interesting. Let's see what modern fascism is like.
Wierd, its wierd as all fucking hell
You can see that in Argentina, or even in the spanish party Sumar
Climate Alarmists
We live in it.
China and North Korea are probably the closest examples to actual fascism. Arab Ba'athism also shows similarities.