Hurt people hurts people

No. Sociologists do nonsense like: Hey! Group with X has 4% criminals compared to 2% criminals in the general population. Clearly crime comes from X. Well clearly well above 90% of all human beings never become criminals, wether X happens to them or not. Some people are different. It cannot and will not tell you wether it is deliberate choice or genetics or whatever, but it is not circumstance. Even responding to certain circumstances (like a violent upbringing) makes you different from most people. We like to pretend criminals are just like us, and maybe that would make thing easier in some regards, but they are not. "Evil" is just a strategy some people use to persue their goals, and it's mostly not learned. I can add 5000 lines of nuance to that and explain why people might honestly thing otherwise but it won't change the end result. Some people are just different. Which is a handy justification for genocide and capital punishment, thus we shy away from it. But how it has been used in the past does not make it less true.

One of my favorite House MD episodes "all parents screw up all children". Some do in such small ways the kids are able to get through life well enough, others are really destructive, a long and complicated scale.

Then the worst times are ahead of us.

The more I look around, the more I just see a lot of broken people breaking other people. I glad to see by yours and Huang's comment I'm not the only one. Our desire to bend over backwards to "rehabilitate" criminals and give them repeated chances comes at the cost of enabling them to create exponentially more victims, many of which go on to become likewise perpetrators.

Or we could award custody by default to fathers with very rare exceptions.

​@Neuromancerism which would only result in more abused and or abandoned children.

@@suebotchie4167 How? We have the evidence. Single mothers are terrible for children while single fathers are as good, in some aspects possibly even slightly better than couples. Thats what the data shows.

@@suebotchie4167 Meanwhile, virtually all single mothers are deadbeats demanding others pay for their choice to be single mothers.

@@suebotchie4167 NO it would NOT!!! ALL 6 of my siblings were raised by my father...after our mother LEFT!! HE was the better parent....women lie...God said so in His Word from the very beginning!! And ALL 6 of us have had successful lives with successful families and children and grandchildren....BECAUSE of our great upbringing by our father!! NOT much from our self-absorbed mother.

Not sure that's correct. You may just be noticing the bad examples more because they can become very destructive, and negative things grab our attention fiercely.

@@RafaelDolfe-qm6ll you do have a point that bad examples tend to stick out more. Many of my close friends did have, as far as I can make out, happy childhoods with good parents but…the majority of bad parenting victims were people I got to know intimately through having relationships with. In most cases this is when very dark places get to be shown.

i know when i was a young fellow back in the late '80's early '90's there were lots of girls that wanted a welfare baby. It was a career choice

Most people in general are naive when it comes to bad parenting. In fact most people will just write off as “oh they are doing their best”. Or oh “it’s for your own good”. No, absolutely not, bad parents deserve to be called out and told they are bad parents. Other wise we are all condoning the abuse of children.

@@cristianluna5568 Haven't you heard, it's not abuse, it's "character building experiences", and when those fail I guess the child was just born rotten, the parents did nothing wrong and were loving in their own way! It's all a big Cluster B circus of drama and people keep getting sucked into it even if they aren't disordered themselves.

very true

The line is 'love thy neighbour as thyself'.

The other matter is that there's an element of putting God first too. Altruism has a flaw in that there's a selfishness in seeing the result. Putting God first yields no earthly result that we can prove. Altruism won't lead to humility the way true Christianity does.

​​@@damian_cross This is an issue among alot of Protestants, Alot of them ignore ancient Christian meanings of basic christian virtues. If you read about the old Church fathers, the apostles, or even texts from monastics, you will be shocked how mutch more spirtual and indepth they go. In the teachings of Chirst, and even go to deep details through the whole bible, and Traditions. But when you read about protestant founders, and their views. Its eather missing the point, undiciplined radicaliam, or lack of spirituality to bigin with, or ignoring ancient Traditions. And worst of all, even removing Books from the bible.

​@@thatwhitewolf5222 True. I found more interest reading abojt Orthodoxy and Catholicism thinking than Protestant Thought. Heck. I even learned why "Pray for us" became ingrained in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It actually comes from Early Christian Persecution when they hid in Catacombs. It was how they saw that those who died or Martyred are still part of the Church. And that was asking them to pray of them on Earth. Once I learned this I realized that no. Iconoclasm that the Protestants did was throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater.

What do you mean by socialism? Socialism is basically just resistance to the global Anglo empire… now Moscow has a better living standard than London

@@701delbronx8 Yeah, Moscow is a poster of Russia. Look what other Russian cities are like.

@@701delbronx8 socialism does not mean anti anglo or anti anglo imperialism have you even read a book before?!

​@@701delbronx8No... just no.

@@701delbronx8 Moscow or Russia aren't even socialist anymore and are doing good because they abandoned it lmao

Correct, he was an average socialist.

"Capitalists of the world will remember my carbuncles!".

He was an exceptional Socialist.​@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231

a monster created by plutocrats, grandson of rabbis, never stepped foot in a factory or smelled the sweat of the proletariat married with the millionaire Jenny, in 1843, or rather, the daughter of the aristocrats of the Westphalen house. As we can see, Moses Mordechai's greatest love, , was indeed Capital and money.

@@LoganLS0 that's like being an exceptionally tall midget.

They are hating peasants so much aren’t they? No warlord was so cruel to peasants. The most hardworking, most beneficial people for society. The ones who were feeding them.

And that's the lesson: never let a zealot gain power. Never ever.

@@signorasforza354No, they didn't. That's why they kicked him out of the party.

@@tempejkl didn’t ask a cummie

Confucius is perennially apt. The role of the family, and of language, in keeping a people on the 'straight and narrow' - and what happens when either are no longer sound and rooted in reality - is as relevant to what we see around us as ever.

Don't talk shit, bro. Emiliano Zapata wasn't a pleb; he actually had property. We could put him between middle class and high middle class by contemporary standards. He WASN'T a socialist at all; he was very skeptical and aggressive towards the idea of land redistribution as the marxists proposed He was CATHOLIC reactionary in his roots, his movement was motivated by the management and organization of land that the Crown of Spain had established in the indigenous communities, torn down with the masonic and traitor government of liberals in the XIX century leaded by the traitor Benito Juarez. His image has been used by the stupid socialists who, as always, take idols and heroes who have nothing to do with socialism. The lack of their own true heroes motivates this narrative and propaganda. Pancho Villa in the other hand has humble origins and a more though childhood, son of plebs, no studies, no education, no property at all, And again he as well was very antisocialist, in fact Pancho Villa has more in common with fascist and nationalist views. He was anti yankee, anti chinese, and he also had antisemitic views.

Not really. A slew of communist militants as well as party / state leaders hailed from humble circumstances, to say the least. Foremost amongst them N. S Khrushchev. Along with Walter Ulbricht, Ernst Thalmaan, Earl Browder, Maurice Thorez, Harry Pollitt, Francisco Largo Cabellero, Doleres Ibarurri, Janos Kadar, Josip Broz Tito, Nicolae Caecesku(sic), Wladislaw Gomulka,..the list is nigh on interminable…

What about Stalin?

@@tempejkl Wasn't his early life quite cleric, being raised by a local church father?

@@tyvamakes5226 He was originally going to be a priest (idk about his father). He wrote poems under a pseudonym and became a local sensation for his poems. Then, when he became a socialist, he put his life on the line for the revolution, robbing banks to raise funds, and then being sent to forced labour camps for this.

I had visions of them getting on famously, watching westerns together and plotting the demise of the russian people...

Say what you will about Stalin and Hitler, But you can’t accuse them of being lazy.

Unfortunately lol xD

Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were, by any definition, extremely active workaholics to the point of damaging their own health. They had virtually no private lives and lived for their work. It just happened to be politics or academic study. This video's thesis is pretty stupid.

stalin was a bank robber.

This reminds me of that scene from Starship Troopers where Michael Ironsides explains the state.

Your teacher was based AF

@@BLOODYMESSI4H Oh he was a great guy! He told us the German's and Italians were socialists when all other history teachers said they were not. But he actually fought them so he had a first hand knowledge. He made us learn the American revolution, the 2 world wars and the entire Cold War over the 8th grade year in history and it was so much fun. He passed away in 2001 right before 9-11! HE would hate the state of the world right now.

And the guy was factually incorrect just like this insane video

@@tidakada7357 Always amusing to see socialists out themselves.

He was a parasite to society like all of them. They couldn't care less about the workers or the paysanery.

People believe frauds. They do crazy things when you promise them some free cookies.

@signorasforza354 I know. Still, his claims are so outrageous, and he is such an obviously ignorant and borderline batshit crazy source that it strains credulity that soo many supposedly intelligent people fall for it....

@@marksharp3990 Those intelligent people are frauds themselves, morally corrupted people or people with psychological problems because of bad upbringing. Every time I was having a discussion with an “intelligent” communist, in the end they were praising, justifying, denying or minimizing all horrendous stuff commies did and were slandering their opponents and victims with ridiculous lies. Cummunism is a religion for thugs.

Zionists control all literature publishing. Stung by 19th C criticism that Gods chosen people produce NOTHING Zionist Literature produced 3 towering pseudo intellectuals to flood the world. Marx, Freud and Einstein. They shape much of modern thinking. And so much of it is FRAUD. Freud based all of his scientific "psychology" on his own personal bowel habits and the toilet habits & hangups of the jewish community in Vienna. Which comes from the Talmud a fake holy book. Search jewish Scatology. Their obsession with faeces not openly admitted but celebrated.

​@@marksharp3990What of his claims were "outrageous"?

Problem is there are not that many good dads out there

Starting to see why the commies pushed feminism as one of their first vectors of attack?

Such as life.

Starting to see where feminism fits into all this?

@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231 One of the worst ideologies to plague mankind.

I don't think there is an antidote. How many people can admit that they wasted their life?

​@@neilreynolds3858 Theyll be forced to either way. Reality always delivers the mail. So either do it now, or let it build up more and suffer greater later on.

Sounds like the “children of Woke” 😅

The fact you were able to post this on this type on video is great. My comment would be scrubbed immediately

That's a good redemption story, thank you for sharing. It's great to hear you're working for yourself and having your life in order! And it's true that the people who remain socialist have that fixed mindset and never truly become successful in life. Yet, they can't see it.

Amazing self assessment, thank you for sharing! (I was also raised & state educated in the North of England but I now reside in the USA 🇺🇸 where I lead a bougie life. I doubt I would have the same lifestyle ⛳️ 🏊 🌴 if I had stayed in Yorkshire 😂😂😂)

As an ex-socialist myself, I can say they're probably not aware of any of what I said in the video. Also, just to point out, Freud and Carl Jung were both Hermeticists. After learning this fact, I no longer view their opinions so highly.

​@@TheImperatorKnightthe enemy of gnostics is both orthodoxy or catholicism(protestantism doesn't count,it emulates some of their points,especially the rapture crowd).

I've known 2 committed socialists that I've talked to a lot over decades and gotten to know well. And, no, they have no idea that there's a psychological and developmental aspect to their beliefs. They think they're rational and anybody who doesn't agree with them must be stupid. The first was an only child whose mother spoiled the hell out of him and his father told him to be a Man. He thought that having a penis was good enough. He found a menial job where he only had to work a couple of hours a day and his boss let him spent the rest of the day reading. He complained bitterly about the job and his boss. He wanted to be an intellectual but he hated writing. It cut into his drug taking. He thinks that most people are stupid. The other one had a good father but she hated her mother. She has Mother Derangement Syndrome: Anything her mother is for she has to be against. She had to raise her kids by herself so she had to have a series of minimum wage jobs where she felt like she was being exploited by capitalism. All the evils of the world were the fault of capitalists. She loves Marx and she had the Vision while living on the streets of San Francisco during the Summer of Love. Dugs were involved. She's deeply unhappy and thinks most people are stupid. She most wants to be recognized as a great artist. In both cases it was obvious that they became socialists because of family dynamics but neither could see it. They're both trying to get revenge on what they feel is a cruel world.

Well, capitalism is really the same coin. Yes, millions died under communism. However millions died under the white supremacist capitalism.

@TIK - and yet you've utterly fallen into Freud's trap. "Family problems "of some conceivable kind, strict parenting with physical abuse, as well as profound religiousness, missing or absent parent(s), were all not only very common, but might under a wider sense be said to have been the norm. Depending on how wide you make the goalposts, anybody could have some kind of problem. These people were not lazy by any measure... I am just personally very disappointed in this showing, TIK. Hope you get out of this rabbit hole before you end up thinking it's all about penises or their height or some such nonsense :).

There is a reason honor thy father and mother is so important.

Laziness stems from poor parenting there not equal issues

Look at the propaganda coming out of Hollywood. All designed to damage family life. Look at how men(fathers) are demonised. Look at posh kids at campuses zero in on the evils of their own country's past but ignore the present day evils of other countries. And 100 wars worldwide at this moment, but which one do they protest?

Uh, H*tler was literally the opposite of lazy

Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were, by any definition, extreme workaholics, to the point of damaging their own health. They had virtually no private lives and lived for their work. This video's thesis is pretty stupid, and just.. pandering.

Yes! Most radical leftists from the 60s came from comfortable upper class or upper middle class backgrounds and never had to work their way through college. It's definitely a pattern.

The reason studying REAL history is crucial....

Never met an actual working class leftist before, most of them are more conservative or libertarian while most leftists are middle to upper class.

And it likely describes the many Billionaire socialists.

@@coke8077You've just outed yourself as someone who doesn't talk to working class people. Funny.

You forgot sponges.

Mostly born into some middle class wealth, maybe upper, or watched Dad climb out of lower class and perhaps some helped with Dad's family business or farm. TIK sees Altruism. I'm not 100% familiar with Ayn Rand's definition of altruism, but she means a dark version of that, and towards extremes or elusive perfection. (Another disagreement that I have is that almost everyone in those days grew up in a religious household. I think even the peasants, but that was probably different for the literate middle class. Yet not everyone became a hate-filled frustrated altruistic socialist. I also think hard fathers were the norm in those days. Life was much harder for everyone.) Perfectionism, a neurotic obsession, coupled with the inability of Self to achieve final perfection (because that doesn't exist), coupled with resentment of others who fail to meet one's demands for perfection, is fertile soil for self hatred and hatred of everybody else. "I am brilliant and everyone else is stupid and evil. Or is it the opposite, I am stupid and evil but everybody else can function okay. Well f__k them all. F__k me too." (I just thought of Kurt Cobain hating himself for the alleged reason that the rock music he invented wasn't _absolutely_ original and non-derivative.) I see resentment about "injustice", projected onto others, a ridiculous sense of entitlement, unearned, and an egotistic desire to be king of the world. Another Objectivist channel, focusing more lately on Israel, describes Palestinians and Hamas as altruistic. How? A LITTLE BACKGROUND: This Is despite the fact that the entire philosophy of Hamas, rooted in the words of Muhammad about killing Jews and stealing from the Jewish religion, to declare himself the final and most superior prophet, with a direct connection to God, and a life of stealing from caravans and extorting other kings and leaders, Hamas is all about destruction of Israel yet NOT one word in their 1988 Manifesto about creating a state called Palestine. (The Palestinian movement, its "father" Al-Husseini, a top Intelligence officer appointed directly by Hitler, REJECTED that option of establishing an independent Arab state, since at least 1936.) So what does that have to do with altruism? The objectivists say that their willingness or eagerness to DIE, to have their children and grandchildren DIE, to reclaim the honor of Arabs (the group or Umma), and to fulfill Allah's commands via Muhammad, is seen by objectivists as the ultimate in Self-Sacrifice. But it's really extreme selfishness, from a different angle. I see Self sacrifice as more like giving a beggar $1 or a few, giving an annoying friend without a car a ride to a meeting or to run errands, working overtime for money during a work crisis, arguing in favor of Zionism with no pay, after having spent years arguing against it in favor of social justice. Blecch! 🤮 Not as a lifelong crusade to kill or try to cause injury to enemies who disrespected Allah, and to continue to do so despite the factor of high risk of death.

Two outta three brother. Good call for the most part.

Never met a communist with callouses on there hands, yet they expect a guy like me to blindly obey them.

Stalin - Born into a peasant family in Georgia - Worked in a Siberian work camp after robbing a bank under the Tsar, in order to give funds for the revolution. Not a mooch or leech, worked in the background of the communist party as secretary, and was voted in because everyone appreciated his role. If we look at Trotsky, we'll notice something different. - Born into a fairly wealthy family, could probably call it middle class. - Did not work in labour as far as I know, but did revolutionary agitation, even in 1905 - Not really a mooch/leech, but actually organised when Lenin wasn't there. Not respected as much due to his argumentative nature. Lost the Soviet Leadership and kept trying to destabilise the nation, sent to Kazakhstan, still kept doing it, so sent to other places, where he kept doing it, so he got kicked out again and again, until ending up in Mexico and was assasinated by an ex-Trotskyist (rumoured to be in the NKVD, however there was no evidence so far.)

My fave he did was on R vs K selection theory and how it relates to political affiliation

His artwork was brilliant. Iv got a copy of his painting of the Virgin Mary and child. It's brilliant. Iv saw seen many of his paintings. They are brilliant.

He was better than most I've seen.

@@Occident. If you have to say "brilliant" that many times, it indicates that you don't really believe what you're saying.

@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231 Isn't art brilliant! It is like pictures you can hang on your wall and then look at them ! Brilliant!

He was completely self taught. If he would have had formal training he could have gone far

Exactly narcissists

Trump is a narcissist and is not a socialist

Yet their altruism seems selfish to me

it is a pretty important doctrinal difference. Though the altruism described as part of Lenin's upbringing is neither lutheran, catholic, or christian altogether.

And Orthodox see Catholics as the first protestants, becuse they rebeled against the old system, with thr papacy and Filioque. When we see that both these things where not the first 1000 years a thing.

Iam a protestant... but the problem becomes when u demand others see things u see them. Even though i KNOW iam right i dont force it on others or see their points as invalid. Its not the way of life people choose, but how much they make it other peoples problems.

Nah. He made her tingle downstairs. All that counts.

I have not red demons but the Social democrats or the Marxists used it as inspiration, at least Stalin but I assume the other prominent ones did as well.

Dostoyevsky himself was a property of government after amnesty. Russian empire was a collectivist country without any property rights. Everything was belonging to tzar. Even thoughts. No laws, no court, private property, no rights. Only obedience and serfdom.

@@signorasforza354 So thats why communism took over so easily, it was basicly the same thing

@@user-qo1us9oc7g Exactly. Even now russians don’t have any ideological or psychological dissonance in praising empire and ussr at the same time.

@@user-qo1us9oc7g You are right. Even now russians don’t feel any contradiction when they praising empire and ussr in the same time.

Not only Vory(aka robbers) but Vory and KGB. Criminals and kgb are two foundations of ruzzia. That’s why they love cummunists. Because cummunists love thugs.

Comintern was functioning just like mafia.

Mafia and communist are two wings on the same bird

True, my take is that it is a politically motivated message with cherry picked examples and definitions.

The honest inner monologue of every socialist.

My follow-up to that is: A considerable number of the people that adhere to the ideology of socialism have deluded themselves into believing that merely existing is grounds for being provided for. They lack the critical thinking ability to recognize that if everyone acted as they did, society would collapse because nobody would produce anything. At the same time, if the rewards for contributing are no better than rewards for not contributing, that disincentivizes people from working. Why should I be working when I'm no better off than those who don't? The crucial step in transitioning from a capitalist to a socialist society is equalizing the standard of living for the welfare class and the working class. This demoralizes the working class to such a degree that they see any change at all as an improvement of the status quo.

@@Subzeropole I think they know that people would stop producing if they didn't have to provide for themselves, but it goes back to what you said about them thinking of themselves as intellectually superior. They think they're the only ones clever enough to figure out they can just sit on their ass all day and get a free handout, because the rest of us dummies would be out working to provide for them.

👍👍

I mean, they were all clearly talented. Nobody will make a videos about you in 100 years and you will be lucky if any of your descendants mention you.

Good luck m8

TIL I have all the hallmarks of a socialist dictator Good thing I hopped on the capitalism train as soon as I could.

Good luck. Rooting for you.

I feel you brother

You can do it

First! Congrats!

Up next: 1 hour of TANKS 🤟

@@TheImperatorKnight I'll take tanks or philosophy or economics - anything but TIK's psychoanalyses. He's a smart guy with a wide base of knowledge, but this one is finally well outside his scope. I think there's confirmation bias. People who are intellectually misled into being socialists can and do come from all backgrounds, and are often passionate workaholics (indeed like both Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler). TIK's not only going against his own individualist position (apparently unknowingly?) - by diminishing personal agency, but if he goes down this Freudian rabbit hole he'll end up thinking it's all about height or penis size or whatever.... :D

​@@TheImperatorKnight great replacement video when??

Indeed. And Jesus's criticisms of it were primarily aimed at the very same corrupt intentions of chasing an outward appearance of generosity and overall "righteousness" that we see among "altruists." "Virtue-signaling", in modern parlance. He never advocated for creating hierarchical systems to take up the burden of charity, and the Parable of Talents is explicitly capitalist in principle and describes the very Pareto distribution that socialists have been waging ideological war against.

Judaism is a form of Satanism. There is no denying of that . Veil from the temple was torn from top to bottom.

It's also forbidden in actual Christianity. Unfortunately, TIK, as good as he is, hasn't studied the subject enough. The whole "he had a religious upbringing, therefore he became a socialist" thing is a bit silly, since EVERYONE had the identical religious upbringing back then, and 99.9999% of those with "religious upbringings" didn't become revolutionary socialists.

@@historyandhorseplaying7374 And most of those who are Lutheran were in German-speaking areas. Which... yeah there's like a 50% chance they would have been Lutheran at the time in that case.

@@professorhaystacks6606 Yep and if they'd grown up in Bavaria they'd likely have had Catholic religious upbringings, like everyone else too.

How is feminism different then how you viewed it in the past? Or if I'm misunderstanding can you please expand

@@tylermorrison420 I was total normie, I honestly thought it was about female empowerment. This was also a very artsy clique, the witchy tattoo girls

Feminism = pear shaped socialism in comfortable shoes

Have you seen the Fiamento Files here on KZfaq? I also thought that feminism was about equality and that if I didn't agree with it, I'd be considered to be against women. Vile stuff that ideology is

@@PinkTorpedo909 I was in my 20s in the 90s, and I remember all the trendy white girls became "wiccans" to be hip and "rebel against patriarchy". My, how far things have gone.

TIK probably read this and thought "damnit he's right, I'm not done"🤣

Re-return?🙊

And yet, you would watch those 7 hours on a device made in a socialist (communist) country 🤣😁

@@aleksazunjic9672 And you watch this video on KZfaq which is a capitalist corporation 😂😂

​@aleksazunjic967 nah my phone is made in south Korea and that is not socialist

My dad was an atheist. He didn't like being told that doing whatever he wanted to do was wrong. It was amusing to be taken to church on Sunday and then listening to my dad tell me why it was all BS afterwards.

Maybe you wouldn't call me an "edgy athiest[sic] anti christian", but I can assure you that I am very definitely a conclusional atheist, and absolutely opposed to the filth that is christianity. I paid close attention to the sermons I heard twice every Sunday throughout my formative years, and I have read a lot since then, both by christians and by atheists, in addition to even more material on KZfaq, including people who are showing where christians got their ideas from. Hint: it should far more be called Greco-Roman than "Judeo-christian". Maybe the real problem is that your parents were too lazy to look into / teach you about christianity?

@@stephannaro2113 yeah being anti-theist isn't "edgy atheism" when you actually know how destructive religion can be (and frequently is), and it most certainly is not entirely a bunch of bitter believers coping about there being no god, although there are a lot of those too.

@@hckr_-gh7se People who are bitter that YHWH doesn't exist... sheesh!

Many self-proclaimed athiests get into what is called a secular religion i.e a cult..

As you should.

Who is John Galt?

That is such a deceptive statement. Do you know what it really means?

I agree with this statement so much. "I think, therefore I am." has brought so much destruction to the modern world. The truth is always "I am, therefore I think."

@@WolfeTone17-98 are you tarded?

😂

To me the more I learned of and read Karl Marx, the less I understand how people think he was correct.

He managed to develop an interesting veneer of authority

Goverments are teaching gay sex for kids nowadays

Then become a good parent, and if you cannot become one, then do your best to encourage and uphold a healthy society, either by voting or by simply speaking about it.

@@anthroimperzia3927 Voting? Hows democracy any different from communism, with the means of production of even law, defense and justice publicly owned, some of the most important things and as such the most important to remain fully within the free/black market only.

@@anthroimperzia3927can you define “good parent”

You cannot be a socialist without being altruistic. Socialism requires altruism, since the "equality" principle is based upon it. Altruism is all about helping others. The question is: why are others in need of help? Because the system (capitalism) is bad. Material reality does not provide equality, and this, material reality is bad, and we must overcome it by coming together and helping our fellow men via the collective (the state). This, altruism is against material reality ("nature") and the free market. This is the reason they blame others, like you said. They think that men who are left to their own devices will devour each other like a swarm of rats. Therefore, other men are the problem in their eyes. That's why they call for a socialist "New Man".

Like Netanyahu.

@@Occident. And bush and obama and biden and clinton and bush sen. and reagan and etc.....

@@veryunusual126 sure cummies.

So does lust as much as pride.

​​@@signorasforza354funny- considering much of what you have, wear, eat, use, or affiliate with is probably made at least in part by China..

I believe that the pattern is still there though. He was raised Catholic, was separated from his parents, lost the faith etc. I'd need to look at him in more depth though to be sure.

Stalin certainly didn't avoid work. He was in a forced labour camp in Siberia, after risking his life for the revolution, by robbing a Tsarist bank to raise funds.

Something I recommend for all.

He mentioned re ently finding out about their writing fairly recently..

Yup. Sometimes I almost regret reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in high school. Makes things a lot harder sometimes. Who the fuck is John Galt?x

@@frankmueller2781 I can't say I'm a total fan but I've read her stuff and yes I think she has her points and should be read.

Who is John Galt?

Someone did a study of the paternal relationships of the 100 or so most cited feminists, and couldnt find many that had a good relationship with their father.

@@elLootogonna see a lot of feminists and dictators in the next 50 years 😂

... Damn

And Teddy cracked down on corporations and fought against capitalist businessmen. Your point is?

Most of them also have a hatred of the patriarchal line, even if a few cases not directly the father, though most cases it does end up being a hatred for the father, which makes sense since Communist thinking is inherently a product of weak feminine thought. (Strong feminine thought would call the man to work for payment)

Show me a socialist leader (relevant, st least country level) with a good relation with his paternal line

Laziness, true, but a TIK explained, there is more to it that then that...

⁠@@felipeignacioavilapizarro3698 at least country level? I don’t see how it makes sense to judge an entire ideology (and supposed “cause” of it) by looking at a very small portion of them, but I’ll list a few very significant socialist leaders as examples. Rosa Luxemburg, one of the founders and leaders of the communist movement in Germany, had a very close relationship with her family. Angela Davis, prominent member of the black panthers. Huey p Newton, founder of the black panthers. The list goes on and on. Family issues are very common, you could make the argument that they cause any ideology if your logic is that many people of a certain ideology share that experience so that must be what caused their beliefs.

And none of them could be called lazy, so except the so called analysis.

The problem is that you seem to think 'altruism' = self sacrifice. Let's think carefully about selfishness if it is condemned...why would anything be done? And why would no one condemn someone who just receives the help? They would be clearly selfish by asking for it since they need it while others might need more than then... Main issue is that TIK, like you, have the 'positivist' view of 'altruism', which is only August Comte's take on 'altruism' (which is shit like Positivism as a whole, yet its ideas influenced all). Here is what August's take was. "An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent." Yeah, piece of stupid shit.

I guess your post would be best described as the faithless having a bone to pick with the faithful. The theme of Socialists having a religion-sized hole in themselves that they try and fail to fill. The notion of course being that man must and can only pick one master to serve, with most cases being: God or the State.

Altruism is evolutionarily beneficial and an instinct that exists in several mammals to help them survive not just humans so saying that it's toxic is just as delulu as saying greed is bad because you should never want material things. what TIK did was redefine the word. when he complains about altruism he's really complaining about the leftist hatred of fulfilled people and hatred of productive self-interest.

@@EnclaveApex The problem is that everyone here takes a secular description and tries to shoehorn it in Christianity. 'Altruism' as a word did not even exist before August Comte made it up to make his 'ethics' of sacrifice in which an action is only good if the agent is never benefitted from it.

There is a toxic altruism and not everyone who is religious adopts it, but it manifests when the positive virtue of charity is perverted into the self-effacing form that TIK is describing, which is the complete inverse of a work ethic. I think that's what TIK meant and if so I think he could have been clearer.

Plus they always see themselves as the victims, as the poor. I've never seen a socialist give to charities, never.

TIK used Ayn Rand’s definition which is why Altruism is being cast in such a negative light. Who was one of the most anti-altruistic people ever to live. In short a dictionary should have been used to define Altruism, not a political thinker who completely opposes the idea.

Are you denying the identified pattern? Did all of these socialists not have religious upbringings, an altruistic morality system, parental issues, and a fear of independence that resulted in indolence?

@@TheImperatorKnight Yes I do. Your talk is an exercise in procrustian reductivism. Just about everybody had a religious upbringing in those days. Rand has also led you astray on altruism. You should read Adam Smith on this subject. Nor were many of them indolent (a word you stress wrongly); they worked hard on their revolutionary activity. Independence? They went their own way with a vengeance. Also, we only have Hitler's word on his father.

truth bomb "scumbag" does represent Marx very well

True, TIK's definition is kind of self-defeating. He argues that all socialists have been bums, but those socialist dictators took huge responsibilities and had a heavy workload. Lenin's political work was so taxing that he suffered a stroke, Hitler spoke about how his duty to the country had destroyed his health.

What "work" did they do exactly? I reckon they mostly likely delegated most of their responsibilities, and were more of an overseer than anything else. Just as it is now with modern politicians that have others writing their speeches, policies, legislation etc. Ambitious, but they do lack work ethic, and being in government gives them the opportunity to make massive gains while doing the least.

@@die1mayer they didn’t take responsibility, they were committing atrocious human experiments and were failing horribly but their actions were justified by their zealots. Even now they are justifying all disgrace and cringe with plain lies and manipulations.

Good point. I think the laziness and lack of responsibility is only when it's "real" work. They were very excited to work as hard as they could for their own purposes - writing theory, doing revolutionary activity, and the later controlling of the state for Lenin. But when it came to having a normal job whose purpose wasnt to control or gain control, then they were not keen on it.

In practice altruism means redistributing your wealth, not theirs.

Better yet don't neglect them.

If you want them to have dignity and will to live their life and having good families themselves later, better not to beat them.

Altruism in religion doesn't seem to be making the world better either. How many people have the Christians, Muslims, and Hindus killed?

Maybe though this is my thinking. Altruism taken to the utmost insane conclusion

Thank you for sharing your story, and for the book recommendation! I'll check it out

I find this question so interesting that I'm writing an essay on it. I would share with you, but... it is in Spanish as this is my mother language. Anyway, my thesis is that patriotism and nationalism are, not only different, but OPPOSITE. Patriotism is the natural feeling of love and gratefulness we all (should) have to our family, society, town, neighbourhood and country. While nationalism is the ellaborate ideology we use to justify xenophobia.

Certainly would be a good discussion.

@@FaramirGL That's an interesting take on it. Thanks. And good luck with your thesis. 👍

@@FaramirGL I'd honestly say that Nationalism is just the expression of the tribal instincts that are hardwired into us. There is always going to be the us and the them. Patriotism is a yardstick by which you can measure someone's devotion to their particular 'team'.

I think of you look back at his previous videos you'll find your answer. Nationalism wasn't the cause of WW1 or 2. It was a mixture of failing institutions, economics, faulty philosophies, and power dynamics of the ruling classes of those prospective countries. Nationalism, (identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations), doesn't push nations to start wars with other nations. Reason is simple- by attacking another nation you would destroy a portion of your own economy and pollute your culture with the defeated enemy- provided you won, of course- worse if you lose.. Germany, Italy, and Japan were way more than just nationalists. Their belief in a racial spirit that, being infused within and justified by the state, gave them a justification to dominate and take from others and then putting those others to work for their state. This is not nationalism, it is a perverted religion of the state. A more simplistic way to look at it- Nationalist- Whatever is good for my people is good for my country. Religious Statist- Whatever is good for the state serves the people (because the state and the people are "spiritually mixed" according to their stupid religion).

Protestantism is the reason behind atheism and the religion of equality.

I don't blame Lutheran doctrine. Some of the people on this like (e.g. Mao and Pol Pot) weren't Lutherans. It's just that the first four were.

@@TheImperatorKnight I think they rebelled against Lutheranism in particular because our faith does indeed put an emphasis on forgiveness and not seeking revenge on our enemies, a gigantic stumbling block to those with top-down plans for “humanity”. I enjoy your work on exposing the Nazi ideology and the Marxist ideology being from the same Hegelian religion. Love the channel! 😎👍

Luther told Christians to listen to themselves and act according to their opinions. consciences. But the tragedy of the [Protestant] Reformation is that it began as a German revolution, but it ended in a battle over dogma, and Luther finally linked conscience to Jewish teachings of the Bible

"Stick to regurgitating works by actual scholars and researchers rather than presenting your own analysis" would be more apt.